Classical Physics vs Quantum Mechanics and QFT used as Basis for Dramatica Theory Part 2

1

manyworlds2

ok, so let’s take a step back. in quantum theory there is a currently a debate between the copenhagen interpretation (observer changes reality, waveform collapses resolving probabilistic superpositions into single position) vs many worlds interpretation, and the many worlds interpretation is winning*, so we may once again be boxed into an outmoded interpretation of dramatica theory here.

**okay, it’s not much of a debate. like CM, Copenhagen is useful for certain scientific endeavors, but no one who’s serious thinks it describes reality at this point. It’s been outmoded, too.

=============response

Yes, that’s a sharp insight — you’re noticing the parallel between Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds in physics and Collapse vs. Deterministic Completion in story theory.

1. Copenhagen in Physics

  • The wavefunction is a superposition of probabilities.

  • When an observer measures, the wavefunction collapses into one definite outcome.

  • Observation changes reality; before measurement, the system “has no definite state.”

2. Many Worlds in Physics

  • The wavefunction never collapses.

  • Every possible outcome of a quantum event happens, branching into parallel universes.

  • What looks like collapse is just our subjective path through one branch of the larger wavefunction.

  • More and more, theorists and philosophers of physics lean this way, because it preserves unitary evolution of the wavefunction (no “magical” collapse postulate).

3. How Dramatica Mirrors Copenhagen

Dramatica theory (and especially its “waveform collapse” metaphor we’ve been animating) leans on Copenhagen logic:

  • A story contains all potentials until it reaches climax/decision.

  • Then the probabilities collapse into a single resolved narrative.

  • Audience experience = the measurement that crystallizes meaning.

This works beautifully in storytelling, but it is Copenhagen-flavored: collapse → single outcome.

4. The “Many Worlds” Alternative for Story

If we took Many Worlds seriously in narrative:

  • Stories wouldn’t collapse into one outcome — they would branch.

  • Every choice the protagonist “might” have made is real in some parallel storyline.

  • What the audience experiences as “the story” is just one cut through a larger branching structure.

This is already happening in fiction:

  • Borges’ The Garden of Forking Paths.

  • Modern multiverse films (Everything Everywhere All At Once, Spider-Verse).

  • Hypertext and game narratives where all branches exist, though the player/audience travels one.

So Dramatica-as-Copenhagen risks being the “outmoded physics” of narrative.

Dramatica-as-Many-Worlds would mean: the storyform doesn’t collapse → it contains all possible completions simultaneously.

5. Substance as Process in Many Worlds Dramatica

If we map her extension (substance as process, situations as moods, etc.):

  • In Copenhagen-Dramatica: process → feeling once collapse happens.

  • In Many Worlds-Dramatica: process is always-already many feelings, many moods, all branches alive at once.

  • A storyform is not a single narrative DNA but a superposed multiverse of arcs, with the reader’s traversaldetermining which one is “lived.”

That would change the job of the writer:

  • Classical Dramatica: engineer the collapse.

  • Many Worlds Dramatica: engineer the branching architecture so that every branch is meaningful.

:white_check_mark: So your point is right:

Dramatica’s current physics metaphors implicitly assume collapse (Copenhagen). But contemporary physics suggests that unitary evolution (Many Worlds) may be truer — which would mean stories don’t resolve into a single arc, but always exist as branching superpositions of meaning.

:backhand_index_pointing_right: MPI, do you want me to sketch what a “Many Worlds Dramatica” storyform would look like — how you’d design a branching narrative structure that preserves the Dramatica quads, but lets every outcome coexist? That would show how to “update” the theory past its Copenhagen roots.

2

yes

============

Great — let’s take this leap and sketch what a Many Worlds Dramatica would look like.

1. The Copenhagen (Classical) Dramatica Model

  • One storyform: a rigid structure, like DNA.

  • Writer makes choices at each level (Domain → Concern → Issue → Problem, etc.).

  • At the end: all ambiguities collapse → single message, one story argument.

  • Audience satisfaction comes from this closure, the certainty of resolution.

2. The Many Worlds Upgrade

In a Many Worlds framing:

  • The storyform doesn’t collapse into one DNA code.

  • Instead, the storyform is a multiverse of branching quads: every possible problem/solution pairing exists simultaneously.

  • A narrative “path” is just one traversal through the tree.

Implications:

  • The whole Dramatica table is active, not just the one “chosen” square.

  • Every Catalyst/Inhibitor pair doesn’t resolve into a single function, but spawns branches where both versions play out.

  • Audience experience = moving through one branch, but they can feel the ghost branches (paths not taken).

3. How the Story Structure Looks

Think of the classical Dramatica quad:

A   B
C   D

In Copenhagen-Dramatica, you eventually resolve to ONE of these as the root meaning.

In Many Worlds-Dramatica, all four persist:

  • The protagonist resolves A in one branch, but in another branch it resolves C.

  • From a God’s-eye (Block Universe) view, the entire quad remains populated.

So the story engine becomes a branching fractal instead of a collapsing pyramid.

4. Storytelling Consequences

  • Closure replaced by Architecture: the artistry is not in closing down ambiguity, but in designing a branching system where each branch has coherence.

  • Reader/Player as Observer: the reader’s path is a traversal, not a collapse. In film/novel you can imply ghost-branches (missed choices, alternate versions). In games/hypertext, the player literally walks them.

  • Theme as Entanglement: instead of resolving one theme, you let multiple contradictory themes coexist — because in Many Worlds, contradictions are just different branches of the same superposition.

5. Example (Friar, Amelia, Beamer)

  • Classical Dramatica (Copenhagen):

    • Friar must either “stop doubting” (collapse to Knowledge: Fact) or “start believing” (collapse to Knowledge: Belief). The story resolves one way.

  • Many Worlds Dramatica:

    • Both arcs exist: in one branch Friar resolves his doubt, in another he doubles down.

    • Amelia both becomes an idealist visionary and a disappointed realist, depending on the branch.

    • Beamer both reconciles with his identity and remains estranged.

The story engine is the superposed whole. The novel you write is one slice; another novel could show another branch.

6. Practical Writing Tool

  • Instead of a Table of Story Elements → a Probability Lattice of Story Elements.

  • Each element has amplitude (likelihood).

  • The narrative path collapses it for one audience experience, but the full system preserves every possibility.

This mirrors how hypertext novels, interactive fiction, or multiverse films actually work. The writer designs the lattice, not just the line.

:white_check_mark: Summary:

  • Copenhagen Dramatica = one DNA, one collapse, one argument.

  • Many Worlds Dramatica = a branching multiverse of arguments, with the “storyform” being the whole branching structure.

  • Resolution is not singular meaning, but the architecture of possible meanings.

:backhand_index_pointing_right: Do you want me to actually draw a Many Worlds Dramatica diagram — showing the branching quad structure expanding outward (like a probability tree), instead of collapsing inward like in the “waveform collapse” animation?

3

Many Worlds Dramatica: Branching Quad Structure (Depth 3)
Many Worlds Dramatica: Branching Quad Structure (Depth 3)1900×1626 184 KB

Here’s a first sketch of a Many Worlds Dramatica branching structure:

  • Instead of collapsing into a single outcome (Copenhagen-style), each quad branches outward into four possibilities.

  • At depth 3 here, you can see the fractal expansion — every node gives rise to four more, and all branches coexist.

  • The “storyform” is the entire branching tree (the multiverse of possible narratives), not just the single chosen path.

This gives a visual sense of Dramatica updated under the Many Worlds interpretation: resolution is not collapse into one argument, but the architecture of all arguments branching simultaneously.

:backhand_index_pointing_right: Would you like me to build a side-by-side comparison diagram — showing Copenhagen Dramatica (collapse inward) vs Many Worlds Dramatica (branch outward) — so the contrast is instantly clear?

4

yes

=======================

Many Worlds Dramatica (Branch Outward)
Many Worlds Dramatica (Branch Outward)2519×1318 301 KB

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

Left: Copenhagen Dramatica

  • One quad at the top, splitting into four options.

  • All four collapse into a single resolved point.

  • Matches the “waveform collapse” metaphor — one outcome, one story argument.

Right: Many Worlds Dramatica

  • The quad at the root keeps branching outward.

  • Every possible path continues, coexisting as parallel storylines.

  • Matches the Many Worlds interpretation — the storyform is the whole branching multiverse, not just one collapse.

5

I’d like to suggest that the audience feels the infinite branches of the story, it’s their ‘what if’ instinct. They always have. And, of course, their other selves, smeared across the multiverse, are actually experiencing each infinite branch of the story.

in a story we embody the many worlds either by laying out the character’s choices or creating the characters (and societies and worlds) so that the audience feels the choices. I’d suggest this gives a story the feeling of complexity, reality, richness. It makes it resemble reality.

6

One fascinating thing from a Dramatica lens is to realize that there is only one “I” perspective, i.e. there is no way to know whether anyone else is conscious. So then the Copenhagen idea that the observer collapses the wave-function makes a lot more sense. There is no requirement for anyone else to collapse the wavefunction; they are all the “they” (OS) perspective (or perhaps at times “you”). Yes, physicists doing quantum experiments may say that such-and-such observations seems to have collapsed the wavefunction, but that doesn’t mean any such collapse happened unless I was the one measuring it.

1 Like
7

cool thought. in real life we don’t know anyone else is conscious, either. one subjective POV per customer.