Film #47 · 2013

Coherence

dir. James Ward Byrkit · USA · English · 89 min

Science fiction

A comet passes. At a small dinner party, the guests begin to discover that other versions of themselves are passing through the night next door.

Eight friends gather for dinner on the night a comet is to pass close to Earth. The power flickers. Phones break. Two of the guests walk to the only other house with lights on, return unsettled, and the group begins to realise that the houses up and down the street are alternative versions of their own. Every time someone leaves and returns, the version of the dinner party is not quite the one they left. The film, shot in five nights on a single living-room set, treats quantum decoherence as a literal social problem: which dinner party becomes the "real" one is decided by who walks back through which door.

Premise

A comet causes decoherence between adjacent realities; a dinner party finds that each time someone leaves and returns, they may have walked back into a different version of the same evening.

Dimensions Engaged

Observer

Observer · Identity: when there are seven other versions of you within walking distance, the question of which you is the original loses meaning. The film treats this as a practical problem the characters must solve.

Space

Space · Locality: the film makes the decoherence boundary literally the front door of each house, and treats walking across it as the consequential act.

Readings — Schools Through Which the Film Speaks

The film commits to a literal interpretation of decoherence: macroscopic objects can in principle exist in superposition, and the comet provides the scenario in which this becomes locally true. The film does not soften the physics into metaphor.

Hugh's reading from his brother's physicist friend's book: the explanation of Schrödinger's cat as the working premise of the night.

The film operates inside a working many-worlds frame: every choice each character made has been realised in a parallel dinner party, and they are now able to walk between them. The film treats this as the explanation for the proliferation rather than as a metaphor for it.

The lottery-numbers method: each version of the party draws different numbers, allowing the characters to track which house they are currently in by means of a unique random tag.

A simulation reading is available and the characters articulate it themselves: each dinner party behaves like a sandbox instance whose state is consistent until a boundary crossing introduces inconsistency. The film does not endorse this reading over the quantum one, but it lets the characters consider it.

The houses-with-the-glowsticks tagging sequence: the protagonists treating their neighbourhood as an enumerable set of instances to be marked and tracked.
Solipsism 15%

The film's third act forces a near-solipsist conclusion on its protagonist: if every version of you is real and accessible, the strongest argument for your version being the right one is your own attachment to it — and that turns out not to be enough.

Em's decision to swap herself into the "best" version of the dinner party — and the closing scene in which the displaced original-Em sees herself across the room.

The film is naturalist in temperament: no providence, no mysticism, no consolation. The comet is a physical event with physical consequences, and the moral chaos that follows is the expected behaviour of people inside a physics they did not anticipate.

The closing telephone call from the "other" Em — an ordinary call, with ordinary noise on the line, treating the multiverse as the new ground level of fact.

Internal tensions / contested readings

Coherence has been celebrated for its precision and criticised for resting its philosophical weight on a physics metaphor that is, taken literally, not what decoherence does to macroscopic objects. The film accepts both critiques. Its commitment is that the social and identity problems the scenario produces are worth working through regardless of the physics' tightness, and the working-through is the film.

Metaphysical fingerprint

The film's commitments on each of the six framework dimensions, encoded as the same closed-vocabulary attributes used for schools and personas. What follows below — top schools, neighbor films, dilemma stances — is derived from this fingerprint.

Time

Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Branching Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

Space

Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: N Locality: Non-local

Matter

Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Non-conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

Observer

Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Knowledge Extent: Mediated Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

Energy

Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

Information

Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Discrete

Computed school proximity

The film's fingerprint scored against all schools using the same rarity-weighted scorer as the quiz. A useful sanity check against the hand-curated readings above — agreement is reassuring, divergence is interesting.

Closest films by metaphysical fingerprint

Films whose attribute fingerprint sits closest to this one — independent of director, era, or genre.

Personas the film resonates with

Philosophers whose attribute fingerprint sits closest to the film's — a cross-cluster reading that doesn't depend on whether the film cites them or not.

How Coherence resolves each dilemma

49 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 24 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 8 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
How much weight do future people deserve?
If a billion people will exist in the 25th century, do their interests count for as much as the interests of a billion people alive now? The answer turns on what kind of reality the future has.
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
On these views, time is not a single line stretching forward but a tree of possibilities, at each moment opening into alternatives. Future people are real in some sense, but which future people exist depends on which branches get actualized — and that is the …
Roads not taken Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. (47%) · Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. (32%) · Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course. (17%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is regret rational?
If the past is fixed and unchangeable, what kind of mental act is regret? An error, a duty, a lesson, a perspective on a moment that is still in some sense present?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
On branching views, what you regret not doing is, in some sense, what you did do — in another branch. The regret tracks the difference between the branch you are in and the branches you might have been. Whether this makes regret weightier or lighter …
Roads not taken The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. (47%) · The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. (32%) · The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle. (17%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
A species that no longer exists cannot be helped, cannot be consulted, cannot benefit. Whether anything is owed to it anyway turns on what kind of reality past beings have.
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
On branching views, an extinct species exists in branches where its decisive moments went differently. Whether we owe the species something depends on whether we identify with this branch alone, with all branches, or with the multiverse as a whole. De-extinction research, on this view, …
Roads not taken Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. (47%) · Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. (32%) · Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors. (17%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Extinction is forever; soil erosion takes centuries to repair; the carbon we emit will warm the climate for millennia. But whether 'forever' or 'millennia' means what they say depends on what kind of process the universe is.
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
On branching views, the universe contains branches where the damage didn't happen, where the species didn't go extinct, where the ecology held. Whether the damage is 'permanent' depends on whether you identify with this branch or with the wider branching structure. The same physical fact …
Roads not taken Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. (66%) · Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. (17%) · From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Rome fell; Maya cities emptied; Bronze Age trade networks collapsed in a single generation. Whether what was lost can be recovered — or whether collapse is structurally final — depends on what kind of process civilization is.
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
On branching views, the civilization that collapsed in this branch persists in others. Recovery in this branch is engineering work on a specific trajectory; the lost is not lost everywhere. The metaphysical question of cross-branch identity is open, but the framing matters for how to …
Roads not taken Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. (66%) · Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. (17%) · From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
The universe trends from order to disorder. Whether that physical pattern carries moral weight — making the preservation of order, beauty, complexity a kind of cosmic duty — depends on whether time has the kind of structure morality could lean on.
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
On branching views, the appearance of irreversibility is partly an artifact of which branch one occupies. Across the whole tree of branches, configurations are perpetually being instantiated. The moral reading of the second law has to take seriously the multiplicity of branches before treating any …
Roads not taken Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. (66%) · Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. (17%) · From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Could causation work backwards?
If the laws of physics are time-symmetric, what makes causes precede their effects? And if the asymmetry isn't metaphysical, could retroactive causation be coherent?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
On branching views, time is a tree of possibilities. Causation within a branch runs in the ordinary way, but the larger structure of branches embraces possibilities that this branch's forward arrow doesn't capture. Quantum-mechanical retrocausation, in the delayed-choice sense, finds natural framing here.
Roads not taken Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. (68%) · Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. (17%) · From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
You remember the past but anticipate the future. Whether that asymmetry tracks something deep about time, or just something contingent about how minds happen to be wired, depends on what direction time has.
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
On branching views, memory tracks the path through the tree of branches that the observer has taken. Anticipation is about which downstream branches are possible. The asymmetry tracks the tree structure: backwards is one definite path, forward is many possibilities. Remembering the future would have …
Roads not taken The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. (68%) · Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. (17%) · From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. (8%)
31 mainstream positions
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways. 2% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length. 12% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way. 13% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 13% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 13% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode. 13% Is reality fundamentally digital? Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate. 13% Are there indivisible units of experience? Yes — naturalist quanta of experience. 13% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights. 13% What makes someone the same person over time? There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. 14% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. 14% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 14% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is real but always known from a perspective. 16% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 44% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 40% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 37% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream

Related personas referenced

David J. Chalmers

Related works referenced

The Conscious Mind

Related Films

Films whose school-readings overlap with this one.

Further reading

  • Everett, "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (1957)
  • Carroll, *Something Deeply Hidden* (2019)
← Children of Men Knight of Cups →