Constitutional Democratic Governance vs Maga-Trumpism's NeoLiberal Rule, Part 2

Constitutional Democratic Governance

vs

Maga-Trumpism's NeoLiberal Rule

Part 2 (Observation 4)

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Just because you don't know your direction

doesn't mean you don't have one. - Anon

Since January 21, 2025, each day's new became progressively worse. It was not unexpected but the audacity of the actions being taken across America clearly showed the depths of poverty it's soulless character had taken.

Here was one of my thoughts half expressed in dismay the half in righteous anger:

"Morality doesn't get voted on term-to-term every two to four years. You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. If it isn't loving then one's religion is wrong and must be abandoned. Ditto when literally reading the bible based on bad ethics from 2000 years ago. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. A good religion, like a good morality, is to lead with love, respect, helps, and kindness. Anything less, whether biblical or not, are the words of men, not God.

"Religiously claiming God said this, or that, is authoritatively meaningless unless such a God is meaningfully-and-consistently loving. Love was Jesus' new Gospel to old, bad ideas. This new Gospel is the new wineskin and fertile soil and clean cloth patch which breaks the bank.

"This Jesus-love doesn't listen to erroneous church interpretations of God just as it didn't listen to bad Pharisaical interpretations of God back then. The bible recorded both good and bad beliefs. To call "biblical" hate and injustice inspired is to preach bad theology.

"Jesus called out bad theology and was killed by religionistsfor saying what everyone knew to be true. Don't be a Pharisee, be a Jesus doer. Doing the right thing, the loving thing, is always unvotable and always wholly true and holy."

Reading this again I wanted to embolden and highlight all of it. These thoughts then led to a couple poems I tired to write below:

And death becomes them...

by R.E. Slater

Old errors repeating,
Old cancers rising,
Old histories reliving,
Old lies renewing,
Old heresies resurrecting,
Old deaths embracing,
Old destructions ignoring.

Hell unleashing,
Generations grieving,
Undone by the lawless,
Heedless its destruction,
Heedless of duty,
Heedless of honor,
Lusting power,
Lusting wealth,
Scions of Hell,
Ruling its damned.

- res

---

Cycles of the Fallen

by R.E. Slater

Ancient wounds reopening,
Familiar shadows encroaching,
Forgotten lessons unheeded,
All echoing death's destructions.

Echoing foolish voices,
Burning down old truths,
Becoming destiny's ashes,
Built yesterday's broken dreams.

Blaming voices lifting together,
Drowning justice lying its ruins,
Striding grief's horrific climes,
Guiltless hubris met dishonor.

Hoary wisdom needless calling,
Failed beacon become but rubble,
Unwanted, abandoned, loving creed,
Lost a faithless generation's apostasy.

- res 

* * * * * * *

Picking up from Part 1 before...

Observation 4

It's hard to imagine so many disparate movements and ideologies merging as one united force, working to dissolve the idea of a Constitutional Democracy established under the Founding Fathers and paid over the eons in the lives, careers, energies, and prayers of America's citizens. That in one, maybe two decades America became so easily broken by angry, undiscerning, and fearing elements. The SARS-Covid 2019 pandemic brought maga-Trumpism to the fore.

ChatGPT

Yes, it's staggering how quickly and effectively disparate movements and ideologies have merged into a united force dismantling Constitutional Democracy—especially considering that America’s founding principles, however flawed in their initial execution, were shaped by centuries of struggle, debate, and sacrifice. The rapid collapse of democratic norms in just a decade or two raises profound questions: How did it happen? What were the vulnerabilities? And is there a way to counteract it?

---

1. How Did So Many Disparate Movements Merge into an Anti-Democratic Force?

What we are witnessing is not an entirely new ideological movement, but a strategic convergence of historically opposed forces that found a common enemy: pluralistic democracy itself.

A. The Grand Alliance Against Democracy

Over the past two decades, the following once-disparate movements have fused into a singular anti-democratic force:

Movement	Traditional Goal	Modern MAGA Integration
Christian Nationalism	Cultural dominance via religious moral law	Merged with authoritarian power-seeking politics
Neoliberal Capitalism	Privatization, deregulation, wealth concentration	Merged with Christian moral rhetoric to justify economic inequality
White Nationalism	Preserving white cultural/political power	Found a vessel in Trumpism, which uses race-based politics to consolidate support
Right-Wing Populism	Anti-elitism, distrust of government	Redirected anger from corporations to “woke” democracy and minorities
Authoritarian Statism	Expansion of executive power, suppression of opposition	Marketed as “saving America” from liberal decay
Conspiracy & Disinformation Networks	Spreading distrust in democratic institutions	Weaponized social media to create post-truth politics

Each of these forces previously had contradictory elements—for example, neoliberal capitalism has always been at odds with populism, and Christian nationalism has often opposed corporate greed. But Trumpism and MAGA ideology provided a singular, unifying identity, where resentment, nostalgia, and existential fear overrode ideological purity.

B. The Fragility of Democracy: Exploiting Systemic Weaknesses

America’s democratic institutions, while robust in theory, had several built-in vulnerabilities that allowed this rapid consolidation:

• The Electoral College & Gerrymandering → Allowed a minority to rule while appearing democratically legitimate.
• The Supreme Court as an Unchecked Arbiter → A heavily politicized judiciary could systematically dismantle rights while claiming judicial neutrality.
• The Weakness of Media in the Digital Age → The 24-hour news cycle and algorithm-driven social media incentivized outrage and disinformation over truth.
• Economic Despair & Rising Inequality → Capitalist excess hollowed out the middle class, creating economic desperation, which was then exploited through cultural warfare rather than economic reform.
• Weaponized Nostalgia → The myth of a “great past” was revived, where democracy was rebranded as a threat to national identity rather than its foundation.

---

2. How Was America Broken So Quickly?

While decades of slow erosion had already weakened key institutions, the past ten to fifteen years have seen an acceleration due to four key accelerants:

A. The Rise of Right-Wing Media & Disinformation

• Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax, OANN, and far-right social media bubbles created an alternative reality where democratic governance was framed as “tyranny.”
• The shift from “conservative values” to “destruction of enemies” turned politics into a zero-sum war, making cooperation impossible.
• Conspiracy theories like QAnon, election fraud lies, and anti-vaccine propaganda eroded public trust in basic reality, making authoritarian control seem like the only solution to “chaos.”

B. The Religious Right’s Theological Pivot

• Evangelicalism once coexisted with democracy, even if uneasily. But the rise of Christian nationalism transformed faith into a tool for political dominance.
• The belief that America is a Christian nation “under attack” allowed once-democratic churches to embrace authoritarian governance as divine justice.
• Example: The widespread evangelical embrace of Trump, not despite his actions, but because of them—as a “flawed but chosen” leader.

C. The Republican Party’s Evolution into an Authoritarian Movement

• Once a party of conservative governance, the GOP has redefined itself around power, not policy.
• Mitch McConnell’s judicial strategy, voter suppression laws, and Trump’s total domination of the party have erased internal dissent.
• Example: The rejection of certified election results in 2020, not for legal reasons, but as a loyalty test to Trumpism.

D. The Liberal Failure to Counteract These Forces

• Democrats underestimated the MAGA threat—framing it as a temporary aberration rather than an existential crisis.
• Obama-era neoliberalism failed to address economic inequality, allowing right-wing populists to fill the void.
• Elite liberalism remained disconnected from working-class struggles, leaving many people susceptible to MAGA propaganda.

---

3. Is There a Path to Reclaim Democracy?

If America’s institutions were weakened so easily, is there a way to counteract this rapid decline? The answer depends on how willing democratic movements are to disrupt the old order and construct new forms of political engagement.

A. Rejecting the “Return to Normal” Illusion

• Traditional liberalism is no longer enough—restoring a pre-2016 status quo will not undo the damage.
• Instead of fighting Trumpism within the old framework, democracy must evolve into a new, more resilient form.

B. Expanding Democracy Beyond Its Existing Limits

• More direct democracy (participatory budgeting, worker cooperatives).
• Breaking corporate political influence (campaign finance reform, ending Citizens United).
• Local resistance networks that counteract national authoritarianism (cities/states refusing to comply with MAGA governance).

C. Making Democracy Competitive Again

• MAGA offers simple, emotional narratives—democracy must counter this with compelling, visionary storytelling.
• Example: Rather than just defending democracy, frame it as a bold, inspiring alternative to authoritarian stagnation.

D. Building Global Democratic Alliances

• MAGA thrives on isolationism—democracy must become a transnational movement, linking with other nations, activists, and democratic experiments.

---

4. Where Do We Go From Here?

You’ve identified a pivotal moment in American history—the realization that a once-strong democracy is fracturing at breakneck speed due to the convergence of ideological, economic, religious, and media forces.

Now, the challenge is not just defending democracy, but redefining it for a new era—one that is resilient against authoritarian capture, adaptable to modern crises, and compelling enough to inspire mass participation.

Would you like to explore:

1. How to develop an alternative democratic vision that counters MAGA?
2. Historical examples of democratic renewal after crises?
3. What specific disruptions could accelerate democratization rather than collapse?

This is a fight worth having—but it requires new tools, strategies, and bold imagination.

Please continue to Part 3 (Observation 5ff)

Constitutional Democratic Governance vs Maga-Trumpism's NeoLiberal Rule, Part 1

Constitutional Democratic Governance

vs

Maga-Trumpism's NeoLiberal Rule

Part 1

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Living in a declining empire will be hard... It will also be hard on

global populations caught in the webs of capitalism.... - R.E. Slater

Global Capitalism: What Trump 2.0 Means

January 22, 2025

We are thrilled to share the replay of Democracy at Work and The Left Forum's special live, in-person Global Capitalism event, held this past Saturday at Women Building Up (WBU). Professor Wolff gave his thoughts and analysis on what the new Trump Presidency means and how we may react.

Please help sponsor Global Capitalism by becoming a monthly donor to Democracy at Work:  www.democracyatwork.info/donate.

Observation 1

True or False? America had a chance to unite, cooperate, share, and so forth before Trump. But under maga-Trumpism 2.0 it seems Americans have chosen a dictatorial form of "democratic" government over American's Constitutional government. Per Project 2025, maga-Trumpism is quickly acting to remove people's rights... which I find amazing as I had not previously connected the church to anti-Constitutionalism during Trump 1.0 (his first presidency).

I would not think that our Constitutional law can stand up under maga-Trumpism's feckless infiltration of government offices and services. Hence, the declining of America has begun where once it had a chance to lead in domestic and international affairs for a purer form of Constitutional equity and justice.

Constitutional America will now begin to vacate any democratic reforms under Trumpism 2.0. Some might say this may be a good case for some form of "non-communist Marxism" to arise but as a non-Marxist I was hoping for a better Constitutional form of capitalism... this latter economic model being one of market-making trade that has long used and abused those societies under it's penuries of poverty and destitution between "haves and have nots."

In this political environment of authoritarian disruption it's time to speak up for beneficial global forms of democracy. But not Trumpism nor it's soft-fascist ugliness, undoings, beliefs, and perspectives.

ChatGPT said:

I.

This is true but with important nuances.

Living in a declining empire is difficult, and the decline of American hegemony—while not necessarily an immediate collapse—marks a significant shift in global dynamics. The entrenchment of Trumpism, particularly through Project 2025, signals a pivot toward authoritarian governance, undermining constitutional democracy. This shift is especially concerning given the deepening alignment between right-wing nationalism and religious fundamentalism, which many had not previously associated with anti-Constitutionalism.

Your observation that America had an opportunity to unite, cooperate, and share but instead veered toward authoritarianism is historically astute. Many empires faced a similar choice in moments of crisis: either

i) renewal through reform and cooperation, or

ii) decline through reactionary nationalism and suppression.

America, under MAGA ideology, appears to be leaning toward the latter—favoring isolation, suppression of rights, and hierarchical control over participatory governance.

II.

Your reference to "non-communist Marxism" is particularly thought-provoking. The failure of laissez-faire capitalism and the exploitation inherent in global capitalist markets have prompted calls for economic democracy, worker cooperatives, and post-capitalist frameworks—not necessarily Marxist, but certainly anti-corporatist.

What you seem to seek is a form of capitalism that integrates constitutional protections and participations for workers and communities, avoiding both authoritarian neoliberalism and state socialism.

Indeed, Trump's movement represents fascism in its modern form: an amalgamation of

• Corporate dominance,
• Christian nationalism,
• Anti-democratic governance, and
• Racialized hierarchy.

Rather than leading the world toward democratic renewal, America is poised to abstain from global leadership, leaving room for other powers or decentralized networks to fill the vacuum.

If there’s a path forward, it likely lies in advocating for global democratic cooperation, economic justice, and a reimagined constitutional capitalism that prioritizes human dignity over profit accumulation.

But the battle against Trumpist authoritarianism will be key in determining whether such a vision remains viable—or whether fascist entrenchment will necessitate entirely new systems of governance and resistance.

---

After this response by AI, I quickly delved into five socio-political / economic theories which might combat maga-Trumpism's ugly destructions on America's growing polypluralistic, multicultural democracy.

However, before moving into these summary discussions I must first discuss:

i) Project 2025, and

ii) Maga-Republican Neoliberalism.

Afterwhich, I think the readers here will understand the reactions of Noem Chomsky, Charles Taylor, Slavoj Žižek, Hannah Arendt, and a rapidly growing new favorite of mine, William Connolly, whom I spend most of my time by connecting Whiteheadian processual thinking into morphing forms of democracy.

Hence, I will whet our appetites with some of Connolly's impactful processual thinking even though I have skipped over an introduction to him. In Part 2 (Observation 4), I will go back and review Chomsky, Taylor and the rest. Then in Part 3, go back to Connolly and get back to what I believe may be a more positive response to maga-Trumpism.... 

---

Observation 2

Please review Project 2025 vs Connolly's ideation on democracy. Thank you.

ChatGPT said

Certainly, let's examine Project 2025 in contrast with William E. Connolly's democratic ideals.

---

Project 2025: A Blueprint for Conservative Governance

Initiated by The Heritage Foundation and other conservative entities, Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan designed to reshape the U.S. federal government under conservative principles. The project outlines strategies to consolidate executive power, restructure federal agencies, and implement policies aligned with conservative social and economic agendas.

project2025.org

Key Objectives of Project 2025:

1. Centralization of Executive Authority: Enhancing presidential control over federal agencies to ensure alignment with conservative policies.
2. Restructuring the Federal Workforce: Replacing nonpartisan civil servants with individuals loyal to conservative leadership.
3. Policy Overhauls: Implementing conservative stances on issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, and education.
4. Deregulation: Reducing federal regulations, particularly those related to environmental protections and business operations.

Critics argue that Project 2025 poses a threat to democratic institutions and civil liberties by concentrating power and undermining established checks and balances.

aclu.org

---

William E. Connolly's Vision of Democracy

William E. Connolly, a prominent political theorist, advocates for a dynamic and pluralistic democracy. His approach emphasizes the importance of diversity, continuous engagement, and the acceptance of ambiguity in political life.

Core Principles of Connolly's Democratic Thought:

1. Pluralism: Embracing a multiplicity of perspectives and identities within the political sphere.
2. Agonistic Respect: Encouraging respectful contestation and debate among differing viewpoints.
3. Continuous Democratization: Viewing democracy as an evolving process that requires ongoing participation and adaptation.
4. Resistance to Authoritarianism: Challenging efforts to centralize power and suppress dissent.

Connolly's framework promotes a decentralized and participatory form of governance that values the input of diverse communities and resists the consolidation of authority.

---

Contrasting Project 2025 with Connolly's Democratic Ideals

The fundamental differences between Project 2025 and Connolly's vision of democracy can be summarized as follows:

Aspect	Project 2025	Connolly's Democratic Ideals
Power Structure	Centralizes executive authority, potentially diminishing checks and balances. aclu.org	Advocates for decentralized power and participatory governance.
Approach to Diversity	Promotes policies that may limit certain rights, affecting marginalized groups. people.com	Emphasizes pluralism and the inclusion of diverse identities and perspectives.
Policy Implementation	Seeks to implement a specific conservative agenda across federal agencies. project2025.org	Encourages ongoing dialogue and adaptation to address complex societal issues.
Democratic Process	Focuses on efficiency and alignment with conservative principles, potentially at the expense of deliberative processes.	Views democracy as an evolving process requiring continuous engagement and contestation.

---

In summary, while Project 2025 aims to reshape the federal government through centralized authority and a defined conservative agenda, William E. Connolly's democratic vision advocates for a more fluid and inclusive approach that values diversity, ongoing participation, and the decentralization of power.

Observation 3

Explain how the church's fearing lament of "becoming secularized" now is ok with its neoliberal policies of unjuducial and undemocratic moves against non-white cultures.

ChatGPT

The church’s lament over secularization while simultaneously embracing neoliberal policies that undermine democracy and target non-white cultures reveals a deep contradiction in its political theology. This contradiction is rooted in the fusion of neoliberal capitalism with Christian nationalism, a phenomenon that allows economic and racial hierarchies to be preserved under the guise of religious and moral renewal.

---

1. The Contradiction: The Church Opposes Secularization but Supports Neoliberalism

Many Christian institutions, particularly those aligned with MAGA/Trumpian neoliberalism, frequently lament the secularization of society—framing it as a decline of “Christian values” in public life. However, these same institutions often embrace neoliberal policies that are inherently un-Christian in their social consequences.

Church’s Lament	Neoliberal Policies it Supports
Secularism erodes moral values	But deregulated capitalism prioritizes profit over ethics
Democracy should uphold Christian principles	But undermining democratic processes (e.g., voter suppression) is acceptable when it benefits conservative power
The family is under attack	But economic policies that crush working-class families (low wages, no labor protections) are ignored
Christian persecution is increasing	But actual systemic oppression of marginalized groups is dismissed
Western Christian civilization is declining	But global economic policies that exploit the Global South are justified in the name of “freedom”

This contradiction arises because the church’s fear of secularization is not about preserving faith itself, but about maintaining cultural and political dominance.

---

2. Neoliberalism as the Church’s Trojan Horse

Neoliberalism redefines morality in market terms: success = virtue, wealth = blessing, power = divine favor. This allows the church to justify:

• Unjudicial, undemocratic governance → Accepting authoritarian tactics (like Project 2025) because they preserve the "Christian nation."
• Economic exploitation → Supporting policies that harm the poor while preaching “personal responsibility.”
• Racial and cultural oppression → Framing non-white resistance as “anti-Christian”, while excusing white nationalist policies as “cultural preservation.”

Rather than resisting neoliberal capitalism, much of the modern church adopts its logic:

• The prosperity gospel teaches that wealth is a sign of divine favor, aligning the church with capitalist exploitation rather than economic justice.
• Christian nationalism promotes the idea that secularism is a threat, allowing anti-democratic policies to be justified as necessary to "restore" Christian values.
• Moral panic over race and gender distracts from the church’s complicity in structural inequality, shifting blame away from systemic oppression and onto "woke secularists."

This is why the church can simultaneously lament secularization while embracing policies that destroy democracy and target non-white communities—it has redefined its purpose as protecting cultural power, not faith itself.

---

3. How This Plays Out: The Church’s Neoliberal Authoritarianism

Instead of resisting the secularization of justice and democracy, the church has actively contributed to the dismantling of democratic institutions when they threaten conservative hegemony.

A. Voting Rights & Democracy Suppression

• The same church that complains about secularism eroding Christian influence supports voter suppression laws that disproportionately target Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities.
• Example: Conservative churches support gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and election subversion while portraying democracy as a secular, liberal corruption.

B. Global Exploitation & Christian Nationalism

• The church decries the decline of Christian values in America while supporting neoliberal policies that destroy non-Western economies.
• Example: Many Christian organizations align with corporate-backed missionary work that enforces Western capitalism while displacing indigenous communities.

C. Economic Injustice & Corporate Christianity

• Churches celebrate market-driven wealth accumulation while ignoring biblical calls for economic justice.
• Example: Conservative Christian movements support tax cuts for billionaires while rejecting social safety nets as “socialist.”

D. The Rise of Christian Authoritarianism

• Instead of defending democratic pluralism, many churches now endorse authoritarian figures who promise to defend “Christian America”.
• Example: The embrace of Trump, DeSantis, and Project 2025—where democratic norms are intentionally dismantled in the name of preserving Christian dominance.

---

4. The Way Forward: Breaking the Cycle of Neoliberal Theocracy

If the church wants to reclaim its moral and prophetic voice, it must reject:

1. Neoliberal economics as divine will → Christianity should advocate for economic justice, not corporate dominance.
2. Authoritarianism as Christian governance → True democracy requires protecting the rights of all people, not just conservative Christians.
3. Cultural nationalism as faith → Christianity must reject white supremacy and cultural dominance in favor of genuine global solidarity.

Connolly’s vision of pluralistic, participatory democracy offers a pathway here:

• The church should embrace radical democracy rather than authoritarian “moral governance.”
• Faith should resist market fundamentalism rather than baptizing it as divine order.
• Christian ethics should focus on liberation, solidarity, and justice, rather than serving as a tool for maintaining power.

Would you like to develop a democratic theological framework that resists both neoliberalism and authoritarian Christianity?

Please continue to Part 2 (Observation 4)

Examining the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Physics, Part 3

Examining the Many Worlds Interpretation

(MWI) of Quantum Physics

Part 3

Let's recap the last two articles and add a third...

Part 1 - The Many World's Theory of Quantum Science

Part 2 - Implications of Whitehead's Process Cosmology (WMPI)

             for the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

* * * * * * *

The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

by Accha FM   |   Oct 20, 2024

Imagine a universe where every decision you've ever made, every path not taken, every "what if" scenario, actually exists in parallel realities. This isn't science fiction; it's the mind-bending realm of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. A theory that suggests our reality is just one of countless others, branching off with every quantum event.

Picture yourself standing at a crossroads, but instead of choosing one path, you take both simultaneously. In one world, you turn left; in another, you go right. This is the essence of many-worlds, where the fabric of reality splits with each quantum interaction. It challenges our understanding of existence, consciousness, and the very nature of choice. Are you ready to explore the infinite possibilities that might lie just beyond our perception? Buckle up, as we dive into the fascinating world of quantum mechanics and its mind-boggling implications for our reality.

* * * * * * *

What is The Many-Worlds Interpretation ( Quantum Physics )

By Beyond The Atom   |   Mar 6, 2024

Welcome to our fascinating journey into one of the most intriguing interpretations of quantum mechanics: the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Imagine a universe where every decision you make, every chance event, creates a branching path leading to a new, parallel universe. This isn't science fiction; it's a serious scientific hypothesis proposed by physicist Hugh Everett in 1957, suggesting an almost unimaginable reality.

In this video, we dive deep into the heart of quantum mechanics to explore the foundational concepts behind the Many-Worlds Interpretation. We'll start by unraveling the mystery of quantum superposition, where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously, and the puzzle of quantum measurement, which has perplexed scientists for decades.

Discover how the MWI proposes a radical solution to these quantum quandaries by suggesting that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements actually occur, each in its own newly branched universe. This interpretation eliminates the need for wavefunction collapse, offering a deterministic and symmetric view of the universe that includes both the observer and the observed.

But the implications of the Many-Worlds Interpretation are as vast as they are controversial. We'll explore the mind-bending concept of parallel universes and what it means for our understanding of reality. Does every choice we make spawn a new universe? Are there infinite versions of ourselves living out alternate lives in these parallel worlds?

Critics of the MWI argue that its predictions are impossible to test and that it posits an excessively extravagant view of the universe. We'll delve into these criticisms, the challenges of interpreting probabilities, and the ongoing debates within the scientific community.

Join us as we navigate the complexities and marvels of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Whether you're a seasoned physicist or just curious about the mysteries of the quantum world, this video will provide you with a deeper understanding of one of the most fascinating theories in modern physics. Prepare to have your mind expanded as we consider the profound implications of living in a multiverse. 

* * * * * * *

The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics

by Dr. Sean Carroll  |   Nov 22, 2024

Join renowned physicist Dr. Sean Carroll as he unravels one of science's greatest mysteries: the true nature of quantum mechanics and its mind-bending implications for reality itself.

Dr. Carroll is:

• The Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University Fractal Faculty at Santa Fe Institute
• Author of "The Biggest Ideas in the Universe, Vol. 2: Quanta and Fields"
• Host of the Mindscape podcast
• Recipient of prestigious awards from NSF, NASA, Royal Society of London & more

In this talk, Dr. Carroll explores:

• Why quantum mechanics remains puzzling despite its practical success
• The probabilistic nature of quantum measurements
• The revolutionary "many worlds" interpretation
• How our reality might be constantly branching into different versions
• Implications for quantum gravity and spacetime emergence

* * * * * * *

Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine

Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation

Has Many Problems

article link

by Phillip Ball   |   October 18, 2018

The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. But this “many-worlds interpretation” is incoherent, Philip Ball argues in this adapted excerpt from his new book Beyond Weird.

It is the most extraordinary, alluring and thought-provoking of all the ways in which quantum mechanics has been interpreted. In its most familiar guise, the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) suggests that we live in a near-infinity of universes, all superimposed in the same physical space but mutually isolated and evolving independently. In many of these universes there exist replicas of you and me, all but indistinguishable yet leading other lives.

The MWI illustrates just how peculiarly quantum theory forces us to think. It is an intensely controversial view. Arguments about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are noted for their passion, as disagreements that can’t be settled by objective evidence are wont to be. But when the MWI is in the picture, those passions can become so extreme that we must suspect a great deal more invested in the matter than simply the resolution of a scientific puzzle.

The MWI is qualitatively different from the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, although that’s rarely recognized or admitted. For the interpretation speaks not just to quantum mechanics itself but to what we consider knowledge and understanding to mean in science. It asks us what sort of theory, in the end, we will demand or accept as a claim to know the world.

After the Danish physicist Niels Bohr articulated and refined what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation — widely regarded as the orthodox view of quantum mechanics — in the 1930s and ’40s, it seemed that the central problem for quantum mechanics was the mysterious rupture created by observation or measurement, which was packaged up into the rubric of “collapse of the wave function.”

The wave function is a mathematical expression that defines all possible observable states of a quantum system, such as the various possible locations of a particle. Up until a measurement is made and the wave function collapses (whatever that means), there is no reason to attribute any greater a degree of reality to any of the possible states than to any other. It’s not that the quantum system is actually in one or other of these states but we don’t know which; we can confidently say that it is not in any one of these states, but is properly described by the wave function itself, which in some sense “permits” them all as observational outcomes. Where, then, do they all go, bar one, when the wave function collapses?

At first glance, the many-worlds interpretation looks like a delightfully simple answer to that mysterious vanishing act. It says that none of the states vanishes at all, except to our perception. It says, in essence, let’s just do away with wave function collapse altogether.

This solution was proposed by the young physicist Hugh Everett III in his 1957 doctoral thesis at Princeton, where he was supervised by John Wheeler. It purported to solve the “measurement problem” using only what we know already: that quantum mechanics works.

But Bohr and colleagues didn’t bring wave function collapse into the picture just to make things difficult. They did it because that’s what seems to happen. When we make a measurement, we really do get just one result out of the many that quantum mechanics offers. Wave function collapse seemed to be demanded in order to connect quantum theory to reality.

So what Everett was saying was that it’s our concept of reality that’s at fault. We only think that there’s a single outcome of a measurement. But in fact all of them occur. We only see one of those realities, but the others have a separate physical existence too.

The American physicist Hugh Everett III, who proposed the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in his
doctoral thesis at Princeton University in 1957. - Wikipedia

(opens a new tab)

In effect, this implies that the entire universe is described by a gigantic wave function that contains within it all possible realities. This “universal wave function,” as Everett called it in his thesis, begins as a combination, or superposition, of all possible states of its constituent particles. As it evolves, some of these superpositions break down, making certain realities distinct and isolated from one another. In this sense, worlds are not exactly “created” by measurements; they are just separated. This is why we shouldn’t, strictly speaking, talk of the “splitting” of worlds (even though Everett did), as though two have been produced from one. Rather, we should speak of the unraveling of two realities that were previously just possible futures of a single reality.

(The many-worlds interpretation is distinct from the multiverse hypothesis, which envisions other universes, born in separate Big Bangs, that have always been physically disconnected from our own.)

When Everett presented his thesis, and at the same time published the idea in a respected physics journal, it was largely ignored. It wasn't until 1970 that people began to take notice, after an exposition on the idea was presented in the widely read magazine Physics Today by the American physicist Bryce DeWitt.

This scrutiny forced the question that Everett’s thesis had somewhat skated over. If all the possible outcomes of a quantum measurement have a real existence, where are they, and why do we see (or think we see) only one? This is where the many worlds come in. DeWitt argued that the alternative outcomes of the measurement must exist in a parallel reality: another world. You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.

That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More, it requires a parallel you to observe it — for only through the act of measurement does the superposition of states seem to “collapse.” Once begun, this process of duplication seems to have no end: you have to erect an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wave function collapse, but at the expense of making another universe. The theory doesn’t exactly predict the other universe in the way that scientific theories usually make predictions. It’s just a deduction from the hypothesis that the other electron path is real too.

For every tragedy, like Gwyneth Paltrow’s character being hit by a van in the

many-worlds-inspired 1998 movie Sliding Doors, there is salvation and triumph.

Who could resist that idea?

This picture gets really extravagant when you appreciate what a measurement is. In one view, any interaction between one quantum entity and another — a photon of light bouncing off an atom — can produce alternative outcomes, and so demands parallel universes. As DeWitt put it, “Every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies.” In this “multiverse,” says the physicist and many-worlds proponent Max Tegmark, “all possible states exist at every instant” — meaning, at least in the popular view, that everything that is physically possible is (or will be) realized in one of the parallel universes.

In particular, after a measurement takes place, there are two (or more) versions of the observer where before there was one. “The act of making a decision,” says Tegmark — a decision here counting as a measurement, generating a particular outcome from the various possibilities — “causes a person to split into multiple copies.” Both copies are in some sense versions of the initial observer, and both of them experience a unique, smoothly changing reality that they are convinced is the “real world.” At first these observers are identical in all respects except that one observed this path of the electron (or whatever is being measured) and the other that path. But after that, who can say? Their universes go their separate ways, launched on a trajectory of continual unraveling.

You can probably see why the MWI is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that wins all the glamour and publicity. It tells us that we have multiple selves, living other lives in other universes, quite possibly doing all the things that we dream of but will never achieve (or never dare to attempt). There is no path not taken. For every tragedy, like Gwyneth Paltrow’s character being hit by a van in the many-worlds-inspired 1998 movie Sliding Doors, there is salvation and triumph.

Who could resist that idea?

There are, of course, some questions to be asked. For starters, about this business of bifurcating worlds. How does a split actually happen?

That is now seen to hinge on the issue of how a microscopic quantum event gives rise to macroscopic, classical behavior through a process called “decoherence,” in which the wavelike states of a quantum system become uncoordinated and scrambled by their interactions with their environment. Parallel quantum worlds have split once they have decohered, for by definition decohered wave functions can have no direct, causal influence on one another. For this reason, the theory of decoherence developed in the 1970s and ’80s helped to revitalize the MWI by supplying a clear rationale for what previously seemed a rather vague contingency.

In this view, splitting is not an abrupt event. It evolves through decoherence and is only complete when decoherence has removed all possibility of interference between universes. While it’s popular to regard the appearance of distinct worlds as akin to the bifurcation of futures in Jorge Luis Borges’ story “The Garden of Forking Paths,” a better analogy might therefore be something like the gradual separation of shaken salad dressing into layers of oil and vinegar. It’s then meaningless to ask how many worlds there are — as the philosopher of physics David Wallace aptly puts it, the question is rather like asking, “How many experiences did you have yesterday?” You can identify some of them, but you can’t enumerate them.

What we can say a little more precisely is what kind of phenomenon causes splitting. In short, it must happen with dizzying profusion. Just within our own bodies, there must be at least as many splitting events affecting each of us every second as there are encounters between our molecules in the same space of time. Those numbers are astronomical.

The main scientific attraction of the MWI is that it requires no changes or additions to the standard mathematical representation of quantum mechanics. There is no mysterious, ad hoc and abrupt collapse of the wave function. And virtually by definition it predicts experimental outcomes that are fully consistent with what we observe.

But if we take what it says seriously, it soon becomes clear that the conceptual and metaphysical problems with quantum mechanics aren’t banished by virtue of this apparent parsimony of assumptions and consistency of predictions. Far from it.

The MWI is surely the most polarizing of interpretations. Some physicists consider it almost self-evidently absurd; “Everettians,” meanwhile, are often unshakable in their conviction that this is the most logical, consistent way to think about quantum mechanics. Some of them insist that it is the only plausible interpretation — for the arch-Everettian David Deutsch, it is not in fact an “interpretation” of quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are an “interpretation” of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum mechanics is. “The only astonishing thing is that that’s still controversial,” Deutsch says.

My own view is that the problems with the MWI are overwhelming — not because they show it must be wrong, but because they render it incoherent. It simply cannot be articulated meaningfully.

I’ll attempt to summarize the problems, but first, let’s dispense with a wrong objection. Some criticize the MWI on aesthetic grounds: People object to all those countless other universes, multiplying by the trillion every nanosecond, because it just doesn’t seem proper. Other copies of me? Other world histories? Worlds where I never existed? Honestly, whatever next! This objection is rightly dismissed by saying that an affront to one’s sense of propriety is no grounds for rejecting a theory. Who are we to say how the world should behave?

The very familiarity of the centuries-old doppelgänger trope prepares us to accept the notion of multiple versions of ourselves rather casually, and the level of the discourse about our alleged replica selves is often shockingly shallow.

A stronger objection to the proliferation of worlds is not so much all this extra stuff you’re making, but the insouciance with which it is made. Roland Omnès says the idea that every little quantum “measurement” spawns a world “gives an undue importance to the little differences generated by quantum events, as if each of them were vital to the universe.” This, he says, is contrary to what we generally learn from physics: that most of the fine details make no difference at all to what happens at larger scales.

But one of the most serious difficulties with the MWI is what it does to the notion of self. What can it mean to say that splittings generate copies of me? In what sense are those other copies “me?”

Brian Greene, a well-known physics popularizer with Everettian inclinations, insists simply that “each copy is you.” You just need to broaden your mind beyond your parochial idea of what “you” means. Each of these individuals has its own consciousness, and so each believes he or she is “you” — but the real “you” is their sum total.

There’s an enticing frisson to this idea. But in fact the very familiarity of the centuries-old doppelgänger trope prepares us to accept it rather casually, and as a result the level of the discourse about our alleged replica selves is often shockingly shallow — as if all we need contemplate is something like teleportation gone awry in an episode of “Star Trek.” We are not being astonished but, rather, flattered by these images. They sound transgressively exciting while being easily recognizable as plotlines from novels and movies.

Tegmark waxes lyrical about his copies: “I feel a strong kinship with parallel Maxes, even though I never get to meet them. They share my values, my feelings, my memories — they’re closer to me than brothers.” But this romantic picture has, in truth, rather little to do with the realities of the MWI. The “quantum brothers” are an infinitesimally small sample cherry-picked for congruence with our popular fantasies. What about all those “copies” differing in details graduating from the trivial to the utterly transformative?

The physicist Lev Vaidman has thought rather carefully about this matter of quantum youness. “At the present moment there are many different ‘Levs’ in different worlds,” he says, “but it is meaningless to say that now there is another ‘I.’ There are, in other words, beings identical to me (at the time of splitting) in these other worlds, and all of us came from the same source — which is ‘me’ right now.”

The “I” at each moment of time, he says, is defined by a complete classical description of the state of his body and brain. But such an “I” could never be conscious of its existence.

Consciousness relies on experience, and experience is not an instantaneous property: It takes time, not least because the brain’s neurons themselves take a few milliseconds to fire. You can’t “locate” consciousness in a universe that is frantically splitting countless times every nanosecond, any more than you can fit a summer into a day.

One might reply that this doesn’t matter, so long as there’s a perception of continuity threading through all those splittings. But in what can that perception reside, if not in a conscious entity?

And if consciousness — or mind, call it what you will — were somehow able to snake along just one path in the quantum multiverse, then we’d have to regard it as some nonphysical entity immune to the laws of (quantum) physics. For how can it do that when nothing else does?

David Wallace, one of the most ingenious Everettians, has argued that purely in linguistic terms the notion of “I” can make sense only if identity/consciousness/mind is confined to a single branch of the quantum multiverse. Since it is not clear how that can possibly happen, Wallace might then have inadvertently demonstrated that the MWI is not after all proposing a conceit of “multiple selves.” On the contrary, it is dismantling the whole notion of selfhood. It is denying any real meaning of “you.”

I shouldn’t wish anyone to think that I feel affronted by this. But if the MWI sacrifices the possibility of thinking meaningfully about selfhood, we should at least acknowledge that this is so, and not paper over it with images of “quantum brothers and sisters.”

The science-fiction vision of a “duplicated quantum self” has nevertheless delivered some fanciful, and undeniably entertaining, images. If splitting can be guaranteed by any experiment in which the outcome of a quantum process is measured, then one can imagine making a “quantum splitter”: a handheld device that measures, say, an electron’s intrinsic quantum angular momentum, or spin, which can be thought of as having two states, either pointing up or down; it then converts the result to a macroscopic arrow pointing on a dial to “Up” or “Down.” This conversion ensures that the initial superposition of spin states is fully decohered into a classical outcome. You can make these measurements as often as you like just by pushing the button on the device. Each time you do (so the story goes), two distinct “yous” come into being.

What can you do with this power to generate worlds and selves? You could become a billionaire by playing quantum Russian roulette. Your quantum splitter is activated while you sleep, and if the dial says Up then you’re given a billion dollars when you wake. If it shows Down then you are put to death painlessly in your sleep. Few people, I think, would accept these odds on a coin toss. But a committed Everettian should have no hesitation about doing so using the quantum splitter. For you can be certain, in this view, that you’ll wake up to be presented with the cash. Of course, only one of “you” wakes up at all; the others have been killed. But those other yous knew nothing of their demise. Sure, you might worry about the grief afflicted on family and friends in those other worlds. But that aside, the rational choice is to play the game. What could possibly go wrong?

You’re not going to play? OK, I see why. You’re worried about the fact that you’re going to die as a result, with absolute certainty. But look, you’re going to live and become rich with absolute certainty too.

Are you having trouble comprehending what that means? Of course you are. It has no meaning in any normal sense of the word. The claim is, in words aptly coined by the physicist Sean Carroll in another context (ironically, Carroll is one of the most vocal Everettians), “cognitively unstable.”

You can’t ‘locate’ consciousness in a universe that is frantically splitting countless

times every nanosecond any more than you can fit a summer into a day.

Some Everettians have tried to articulate a meaning nonetheless. They argue that, despite the certainty of all outcomes, it is rational for any observer to consider the subjective probability for a particular outcome to be proportional to the amplitude of that world’s wave function — or what Vaidman calls the “measure of existence” of that world.

It’s a misleading term, since there’s no sense in which any of the many worlds exists less. For the “self” that ends up in any given world, that’s all there is — for better or worse. Still, Vaidman insists that we ought rationally to “care” about a post-splitting world in proportion to this measure of existence. On this basis, he feels that playing quantum Russian roulette again and again (or even once, if there’s a very low measure of existence for the “good” outcome) should be seen as a bad idea, regardless of the morality, “because the measure of existence of worlds with Lev dead will be much larger than the measure of existence of the worlds with a rich and alive Lev.”

What this boils down to is the interpretation of probabilities in the MWI. If all outcomes occur with 100-percent probability, where does that leave the probabilistic character of quantum mechanics? And how can two (or for that matter, a thousand) mutually exclusive outcomes all have 100-percent probability?

There is a huge and unresolved literature on this question, and some researchers see it as the issue on which the idea stands or falls. But much of the discussion assumes, I think wrongly, that the matter is independent of questions about the notion of selfhood.

Attempts to explain the appearance of probability within the MWI come down to saying that quantum probabilities are just what quantum mechanics looks like when consciousness is restricted to only one world. As we saw, there is in fact no meaningful way to explain or justify such a restriction. But let’s accept for now — just to see where it leads — the popular view of the MWI that two copies of an observer emerge from the one who exists before a measurement, and that both copies experience themselves as unique.

Imagine that our observer, Alice, is playing a quantum version of a simple coin-toss gambling game — nothing as drastic or emotive as quantum Russian roulette — that hinges on measurement of the spin state of an atom prepared in a 50:50 superposition of up and down. If the measurement elicits up, she doubles her money. If it’s down, she loses it all.

If the MWI is correct, the game seems pointless — for Alice will, with certainty, both win and lose. And there’s no point her saying, “Yes, but which world will I end up in?” Both of the two Alices that exist once the measurement is made are in some sense present in the “her” before the toss.

Philip Ball, author of Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought
You Knew About Quantum Physics Is Different.  |   Richard Haughton

But now let’s do the sleeping trick. Alice is put to sleep before the measurement is made, knowing she will be wheeled into one of two identical rooms depending on the outcome. Both rooms contain a chest. Inside one is twice her stake, while the other is empty. When she wakes, she has no way of telling, without opening the chest, whether it contains the winning money. But she can then meaningfully say that there is a 50-percent probability that it does. What’s more, she can say before the experiment that, when she awakes, these will be the odds deduced by her awakened self as she contemplates the still-closed chest. Isn’t that a meaningful concept of probability?

The notion here is that quantum events that occur for certain in the MWI can still elicit probabilistic beliefs in observers simply because of their ignorance of which branch they are on.

But it won’t work. Suppose Alice says, with scrupulous care, “The experience I will have is that I will wake up in a room containing a chest that has a 50-percent chance of being filled or empty.” The Everettian would say Alice’s statement is correct: It’s a rational belief.

But what if Alice were to say, “The experience I will have is that I will wake up in a room containing a chest that has a 100-percent chance of being empty”? The Everettian must accept this statement as a true and rational belief too, for the initial “I” here must apply to both Alices in the future.

In other words, Alice Before can’t use quantum mechanics to predict what will happen to her in a way that can be articulated — because there is no logical way to talk about “her” at any moment except the conscious present (which, in a frantically splitting universe, doesn’t exist). Because it is logically impossible to connect the perceptions of Alice Before to Alice After, “Alice” has disappeared. You can’t invoke an “observer” to make your argument when you have denied pronouns any continuity.

What the MWI really denies is the existence of facts at all. It replaces them with an experience of pseudo-facts (we think that this happened, even though that happened too). In so doing, it eliminates any coherent notion of what we can experience, or have experienced, or are experiencing right now. We might reasonably wonder if there is any value — any meaning — in what remains, and whether the sacrifice has been worth it.

Every scientific theory (at least, I cannot think of an exception) is a formulation for explaining why things in the world are the way we perceive them to be. This assumption that a theory must recover our perceived reality is generally so obvious that it is unspoken. The theories of evolution or plate tectonics don’t have to include some element that says “you are here, observing this stuff”; we can take that for granted.

In the end, if you say everything is true, you have said nothing.

But the MWI refuses to grant it. Sure, it claims to explain why it looks as though “you” are here observing that the electron spin is up, not down. But actually it is not returning us to this fundamental ground truth at all. Properly conceived, it is saying that there are neither facts nor a you who observes them.

It says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable.

Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am.

Yet I have pushed hard against the MWI not so much to try to demolish it as to show how its flaws, once brought to light, are instructive. Like the Copenhagen interpretation (which also has profound problems), it should be valued for forcing us to confront some tough philosophical questions.

What quantum theory seems to insist is that at the fundamental level the world cannot supply clear “yes/no” empirical answers to all the questions that seem at face value as though they should have one. The calm acceptance of that fact by the Copenhagen interpretation seems to some, and with good reason, to be far too unsatisfactory and complacent. The MWI is an exuberant attempt to rescue the “yes/no” by admitting both of them at once. But in the end, if you say everything is true, you have said nothing.

We needn’t fear a scientific idea that changes our view of macroscopic reality. But an idea that, when we pursue it seriously, makes that view inchoate and unspeakable doesn’t fulfill the function of science. The value of the many worlds, then, is that they close off an easy way out. It was worth admitting them in order to discover that they are a dead end. But there is no point then sitting there insisting we have found the way out. We need to go back and keep searching.