What is 4 + 3 x 2? One set of people will believe it is 14, and another set will believe it is 10. Two answers, same reading. That shouldn't imply two universes. When you explain the accepted rules of the order of operation, you will be able to get similar answers, but those rules are not typically needed in day to day life, they fall out of usage, and as such, mistakes are made when they become necessary. You may be aware that there are rules, but you can't recall which apply and will have to fill in a lot with your imagination.
As such, perhaps memory, when not often accessed, becomes compressed, like a zip file. In such a case, Berenstain Bears could be encoded as brnstn brs, leaving out the vowels, repetitive letters, and special characters if they exist. When recalled, it is decompressed, and some can remember it one way since the vowels and special characters will be filled in by the imagination, and others will remember it another way.
Or how about fbrz?
It could be unzipped using your mind's eye as Febreeze, Febreez, Febreze...who knows? The vowels really don't define the word anyway--the consonants do. So information could be getting compacted in the brain to save space, but still make it recognizable in day to day life even though it is not wholly accurate.
Hr s n xmpl. Y cn stll rd ths vn thgh th wrds r nt cmplt.
The more information someone is exposed to, the more errors one makes on recall. And since we are exposed to so much--products, news shows, music, movies--a LOT becomes compressed. The unimportant details are then 'imagined', expanding the memory, but with flaws. Sit-n-Spin? Sit And Spin? Sit & Spin? Matchbox? Match-box? Sherra? She-ra? Commodore? Comodore? Mattel? Matell? Sattelite? Satellite? JCPenny? JCPenney? If you're not in a spelling bee competition, you can still work with and recognize these things, regardless of how they are spelled or represented internally.
And when you look at these things again, you may be looking at them using your compressed depiction, never decompressing because you're not interested in the details as they are unnecessary, so the information doesn't get updated--you keep relying on your imagination to fill in the blanks, so you don't truly ever see--until someone points to it and says, "look, we're all compressing this incorrectly."
As an example, I was involved in working on Ford's website for over ten years. I never thought to analyze the swoop on the F. As such, when someone pointed out the swoop, I said, "Hmm, I thought it was straight. I never noticed that." That doesn't mean it ever changed, it just meant that there is so much in my mind that spending extra neurons on the Ford logo had been discarded as an unnecessary detail.
Further complicating matters is that when things SOUND the same, they are typically encoded as they sound. Honestly, Interview With A Vampire sounds exactly the same as Interview With The Vampire, depending on how fast you say it, what accent is used, and how much of a pause you want to emphasize between the words.
That web of neurons up there are not in neat columns and rows. There is a network of re-used nodes that are impossible to untangle. As such, Transformers: Dark of Moon could be encoded on the same neurons as Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon which is why I mixed the two. Curious George could be encoded on the same neurons as Donkey Kong, or some other similar animal that actually has a tail.
And then there is the problem of having multiple versions of the same story, which included not only Disney productions, but even the Bible. 'Magic Mirror on the wall' is actually used in SOME stories and 'Mirror Mirror' is used in other stories. It is not so much we are getting it wrong, it is that we have been exposed to multiple sources at different times in our lives and have heard people recall those details in different ways. Some people studied NIV, others studied King James. You sometimes don't even pay attention to which version you're reading, you just read it. Sometimes you hear people reciting passages from the Bible by memory, screwing it up, and then having their screwed up version encoded in your own mind from that day forward.
Now let's look at residuals. I think 'residuals' are typically publishing errors. Look at what they're finding. People are human. Typos are made in newspapers, teleprompters, printed items, you name it. As such, they are more than likely items that have been overlooked by manufacturers more so than they are indications of leftovers of a reality that was ripped from us and placed in another.
I understand that some want to blame the D-Wave quantum computer as being responsible for tying universes together with adverse affects, but there is actually no evidence that those machines even work the way their creators think they do. According to a New Scientist publication entitled The Quantum World, the President of D-Wave, Bo Ewald said, "We’re not in the business of trying to prove whether it's quantum or not," which is a mind-boggling statement since they're selling the device as a quantum computer.
So even though the creators of those machines create very interesting TED Talks, this is not to say that what they are describing is even occurring. Yet.
I understand some people want to blame some kind of reality architect, changing things because of some newly gained magical spell to show us who is in control, but is that what is actually going on?
Was "The Dress" the first evidence of converging universes because the colors people perceived could be split right down the middle? Or did it just say something about how all of our hardware functions, processes, and encodes information differently to one another?
We fill in so much of life with our imaginations, and those imaginations vary in everyone. It gives us character, inspiration, personality. Our imaginations keep things interesting. More than likely, 99% of what we see in a given day is flawed internally. Think about all the news articles you consume. You're imagining what happened, you're not witnessing it, so when you read a news source, you are making up so many things and describing them to others as fact, when in reality, there is nothing empirical about it: you were not there, you did not see it, you are being influenced by a journalist with an editorial agenda, so you don't know. And even if you were there, your eye-witness testimony will not match other eye-witness testimonies.
There are still a number of problems, however. What about the third Thursday of November as Thanksgiving vs the fourth Thursday? This may have something else to do with neural encoding too, but I don't know. That's a tough one. There are a lot of tough ones, but the idea of compressed information and tangled information filled in by the imagination certainly seems to point to some kind of clue.
I reached out to a few different neuroscientists to comment on the Mandela Effect, but I failed to get a response, which is very unfortunate considering the amount of interest this topic has in society at the moment. Even if the Mandela Effect points to new ways in which our mind functions as opposed to parallel universes, it can lead us to a new understanding. It is a fascinating phenomenon, and my point to this is not to say it is all bunk as I am not a skeptard. What I want, and what everyone else seems to want, is some kind of answer, and this is my own attempt to draw closer to that answer.
Does any of this resonate? Sound plausible?
If we do have the capability to switch timelines or something similar, we are basically free to lie about anything and everything, do whatever we want, and then claim ignorance and blame parallel universes. Think about the ethics. Remember a couple years back when Brian Williams 'misremembered'? If the Mandela Effect had been known at the time, he could have turned himself into a hero by proclaiming, "I WAS actually on that U.S. military helicopter which was being targeted by enemy fire--but it happened on Timeline A." For all I know, maybe he wanted to believe so strongly that he HAD done this, he single-handedly split the universe.
Something to think about.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment