Live your best possible life. How good can it get?

2016jul19csl

Which Mandela Effects have you seen that are the real thing? Which have you seen that aren’t?

If you’ve heard about the Mandela Effect, you might be wondering how to tell when you’re face-to-face with a genuine Mandela Effect, and when you’re not, and the truth about how you can tell might surprise you!

The Mandela Effect demonstrates that facts and histories can change, and not everyone remembers things the same way. I’ve received emails from people writing, “I think I’ve experienced a Mandela Effect, but I’m not sure,” which indicates many people would like to know how we can tell when we’ve encountered a genuine Mandela Effect experience–or not.

There is understandably some confusion on this matter, mostly because open-minded skeptics and smug scoffers both at various times make the case that as French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace once wrote, “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” And it doesn’t seem too unreasonable to expect that we ought to be able to provide evidence for each proffered example of the Mandela Effect, if what we’re experiencing is real, right?

Ironically, one of the main reasons controversy exists about the Mandela Effect has to do with the fact that most any time physical evidence can be found of an instance suggesting parallel realities, at some point we will likely discover that this case of Mandela Effect was actually not the real deal.

So How Can We Tell the Difference?

My preferred explanation for all this is that we are observing quantum phenomena on the macroscopic scale, and there is no ‘von Neumann cut’ where we can start disregarding quantum effects. Quantum discontinuities can (and do) occur at every level. The way we are noticing these kinds of quantum jumps, reality shifts, alternate histories, and Mandela Effects is that we are finding examples where our memories do not match the official historical record of facts–the facts appear different than we remember, and there is a sense that things ‘have always been this way.’ Here is a simple three-step test you can use to discern whether something is the genuine Mandela Effect, or not:

(1) The Only “Proof” is Our Memories

ProofJust like Chief Seattle’s excellent advice for wilderness travelers to “take only memories, leave only footprints,” it seems travelers between parallel possible worlds are able to do only that. While evidence of different memories will likely be dissatisfactory to skeptics and unacceptable to scoffers, our memory actually is the only evidence people are able to find of Mandela Effect examples when they are the genuine article. While memories have gotten a bum rap for years as being unreliable, it’s worth considering that some of the reasons that memories have been noted for not corresponding to historical recorded facts just might be that the Mandela Effect has been happening since before the dawn of human recorded history–which is what I believe is actually true. Now this is not to say that every time someone mis-remembers something or is confused as to what they remember we’re encountering a Mandela Effect–but it is to say that every one of those times actually might represent an example of the Mandela Effect in action.

(2) Side-By-Side Physical Examples Don’t Occur

One of the identifying hallmarks of the Mandela Effect is that when our attention is riveted by a possible case of Mandela Effect, we will not find simultaneous physical proof showing other realities we might remember. For example, if we recall the song on Mister Rogers Neighborhood to include Mr. Rogers singing, “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood,” we will only now be able to find the lyrics being sung “the way it’s always been sung,” which at this time seems to be, “It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood.” There will not be both versions of the song in existence, but rather just the one version–which is precisely why so many people are mystified by the change. When testing to see whether a possible example of the Mandela Effect is genuine, and we turn up a strong presence of side-by-side examples of, for example, a corporate logo in transition–then we acknowledge that this is not an example of the Mandela Effect.

2012feb8Moon copy(3) We Might Notice Flip-Flops

While it is sometimes possible to physically witness evidence of more than one reality, such experiences will not occur concurrently, with evidence of both presenting at the same time. Genuine Mandela Effect examples of reality shifts (that are seemingly happening randomly) and quantum jumps (that might be associated with miraculous instant changes) can sometimes be experienced as “flip-flopping” back and forth between different possible realities. Some examples of this kind of thing that I’ve personally witnessed include: business hours changing back and forth between “always being open until 10pm” or “always being open until midnight; the rain gutters on my neighbor’s house always having had leaf guards, or never having had leaf guards; our elderly dog developing visible cataracts in both eyes or not having visible cataracts. These are just a few examples–and in each case, eventually one of the possible realities was selected as “always having been true.” During these times of flip-flopping realities, we will not see side-by-side examples of concurrent physical realities existing simultaneously, but rather just one or another–even though we know we’ve seen the other realities.

 

Why Our Current Scientific Method Can’t Provide “Proof”

Our existing scientific method was founded on old assumptions that cannot function when dealing with the reality of quantum physics. When quantum mechanics first arrived on the scene around 1900, many scientists fervently hoped they would not need to deal with any revision to the way scientific studies are conducted. Quantum weirdness such as “spooky action at a distance,” quantum tunneling, quantum teleportation, quantum superposition of states, and quantum coherence were all considered part of the weird, wonderful world of the realm of the very, very small, with nothing whatsoever to do with the ordinary human experience of the world. The built-in assumptions of the classical scientific method can’t stand up to quantum physics, yet they have remained largely unquestioned and unrevised now for over a hundred years.

Material realism’s first assumption of strong objectivity asserts there is an objective material universe “out there” that is independent of us. For example, we hope to understand chemistry by studying the interaction of chemicals, and physics by studying how physical bodies interact … yet we do not consider ourselves to be in any way entangled in what we are observing. We often imagine that we can be perfect voyeurs, having no appreciable impact whatsoever on the subjects of our study. The validity of this assumption becomes questionable when we see how inextricably connected the observer is to quantum physics experiments; the observer plays the decisive role in determining what is observed.

The second assumption of causal determinism is the familiar idea that once we understand the forces causing change in a given system, we can accurately predict the effect those causes will have. We would expect to be able to predict what would happen when we roll a marble towards a bunch of other marbles, if we knew where all the marbles were and the position and speed of the striking marble. As we will see in this chapter, quantum physics challenges our ability to understand all that we need in order to make such predictions, since the uncertainty principle does not allow us to know both an object’s velocity and position. We cannot accurately make predictions in the realm of quantum physics, other than having a sense of statistical probability for certain outcomes. Werner Heisenberg proposed in his uncertainty principle that quanta must be described as waves while they travel and particles when they are viewed, and Niels Bohr added that it’s impossible to specify the observed atom’s wave function separately from it’s observing electron. Chaos theory is another challenge to causal determinism, as the universe appears to behave unpredictably at its very core.

The third assumption of locality in material realism is the concept that objects exist independently and separately from one another. We study each experimental subject with the assumption that it is separate from other objects so we can conduct different experiments in different conditions and believe that we are studying an isolated, independent subject. At odds with this assumption is the observation of some twin quantum particles that have shown separated objects can and do remain in synchronization with each other across time and space … continuing to correlate their angles of spin with each other. This was first considered in the “Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox,” later verified in the laboratory, and mathematically demonstrated by Bell’s theorem.

Assumptions of material or physical monism and epiphenomenalism assert that subjective mental phenomena are simply epiphenomena of matter. In other words, the material world is the primary mover and shaker, and things we think we observe through our minds are irrelevant, “immaterial” inconsequential side effects. Quantum physics shows us the weakness of these assumptions when we consider how observers who take quantum measurements collapse quantum waves at the moment they make that observation.

Now that we know that the assumptions forming the basis for material realism are so shaken by findings of quantum physics experiments, it’s time to start refining and revising the above assumptions of material realism into assumptions that include mind along with matter, and that better agree with the findings of quantum physics.

 

Gotta Catch ’em All!

At this time when one of the more popular games is Pokemon Go, with people streaming into parks, cell phones in hand, hoping to see and capture Pokemon “pocket monsters,” people are playing a real-life game of finding possible samples of the Mandela Effect all around. Corporate logos often come up as possible Mandela Effect examples, providing excellent test cases by which to see if they pass the Mandela Effect Test. 

 

You can see the YouTube summary of this blog post here: https://youtu.be/HBCLYPiUwL8

 

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Reality Shifts and  Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including her Living the Quantum Dream radio show, the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Comments on: "3 Qualities of Genuine Mandela Effects" (46)

  1. […] via Mandela Effect Test: How to Recognize True Mandela Effects — RealityShifters Blog […]

  2. Donald Anderson said:

    “Nobody does it like Sara Lee” and Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee”. What’s up with that? 🙂

  3. Your dog example reminded about my previous dog. One of her largest whiskers turned white. Then I would notice it to be black, and back and forth like that for years. I thought she may have contained the cure for gray hair!! Now I think it could have been quantum jumping?

  4. Seven Ravens said:

    This explains so much to me.

    When I was in high school (early ’90’s), I remember hearing on the news — for several days in a row — that Christian Slater had died of a drug overdose. Another day, I got off the bus, to be informed by my mom, that Meatloaf had passed away. For 15+ years, I never heard anything otherwise, then within a space of a few weeks, I found out that both were still alive. When I told my mom, she refused to believe me, and did her own google searches to verify the reports.

    Last year, in a two week period, I ran into three different people I’d known for years, but hadn’t hung out with for about five years, who all excitedly asked if I’d moved back to the area. When I told them I’d never left, just circumstances had changed, they were very perplexed. Some said they had tried to call, another had stopped by our house several times, before they heard we’d moved, and said it appeared that someone else lived there. This made me wonder if a rumor of me moving had caused several others to drop out of my life, and when I contacted them on facebook, they said they had heard I had moved shortly after their phone calls quit going through. They were miffed that I hadn’t said goodbye, and evidently never received the messages I’d left on their machines, before deciding we’d drifted apart.

    • Thanks for sharing these experiences, since I’m certain it will jog peoples’ memories involving other similarly mysterious behaviors of friends. I’m really glad you’re reconnecting with those who thought you’d completely left the area! I co-authored a paper that I presented at a conference where I talked about how we can learn to accept that in disagreements, two (or more) people might all be right. “When Worlds Collide: How Parallel Realities Can Heal Interpersonal Relationships.” http://realityshifters.com/pages/articles/worldscollide.html

  5. Vivek narain said:

    In retrospect we can theorise that the block multiverse exists and what we experience as non-determinism is in fact jumping into different verse,each verse having determined timeline.Teleology simply shifts people from one reality to another,according to their attitude,there being no need for contingency,grand design already scripted in toto,no heat death for any universe.

  6. kategladstone said:

    If the “Mandela Effect” can change how one or more physical objects are (or always were), why couldn’t it likewise change how one or more _memories_ are (or always were)?

    EXAMPLE: Suppose you notice one day that the neighbor’s house (which you remember as being painted green) is in fact painted brown. Your neighbor says that it was always brown. You assume that what has mysteriously changed is the house (changing from green to brown), but why wouldn’t it be at least as sensible to assume that what has mysteriously changed is your memory — that you once had a “that house is brown” memory, but that this memory itself has mysteriously changed,to a “that house is green” memory that leaves you surprised now at the (still) brown house?

    • The ‘evidence’ of Mandela Effect lies entirely in the memories, such as a house being a different color, a celebrity having died, or there not being any research papers on a given topic (and suddenly there are, and always have been).

      • kategladstone said:

        Then, how do you know that memories — the only evidence — are somehow safe? Silly analogy: Suppose that, long ago, our neurons were tampered with (by whomever/whatever), changing our memories of “reading in the Bible about our first parents, Adam and Eve”into memories of “reading in the Bible about our first parents, Steve and Bernice.” Now, suppose that, meanwhile, the Bible was NOT tampered with … it still said, just as always, “Adam and Eve” … so we, falsely recalling “Steve and Bernice,” next time we picked up a Bible and started reading, would be SURE it had been changed … we would freak out, and tell all our friends (who would agree with us, as they would share the same implanted false memory) ……

  7. kategladstone said:

    Re “Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee” —

    The earlier Sara Lee slogan, back in the 1970s when I was a kid, had been a TV singing commercial:

    “EV’rybody DOESn’t-Like SOMEthing … ”
    [this line was sung while the screen displayed people frowning at plates of broccoli, liver, prunes, and other often-hated foods]
    “But NObody DOESn’t-Like SAra LEE!”
    [this line was accompanied by pictures of people smiling and enjoying Sara Lee cakes]

    Eventually, the ads dropped the first line: removing the context of the second line, which made it easy to misunderstand.

  8. Vivek narain said:

    Mandela effect by default implies that no material evidence of alternate memory can exist,same as the metaphysics implies that we can never know what lies beyond death.In my conversation with Dr. Penny Sartori,she eventually agreed that NDE research will never conclusively reveal the mechanics of afterdeath and only actual death will provide the answer to an individual.Though my Sri Lanka survey has given startling results,people from 20 yrs old to 60 yrs,of all walks of life,have unanimously indicated the alternate location.

  9. kategladstone said:

    Even scarier than all the “Bible Mandela Effects” are a few of the _un_changed facts about the King James Bible: https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

  10. I disagree that there are not simultaneous differences in evidence across multiple realities. Many examples can be found in art work that was devotional or created by acts of will rather than free form. one case in point is the memory of Lions and lambs rather than wolves and lambs. Many inspired artworks exist showing both metaphorical bases. If a person is inspired to create from a reference muse that has changed many instances of evidence of the inspiration exist.

    • Thanks for making the cogent point that when people create works of art or writing based on remembering other realities, we do have some form of second-hand evidence that those realities exist. What I meant was simply that so far I’ve not yet witnessed physical evidence of the variety skeptics demand, that could show, for example, side-by-side jars of Jif and Jiffy peanut butter.

      • Vivek narain said:

        Collateral anecdotes are the most important clues to different reality,i have stressed this point many times in the mandelaeffect.com And there are quite a few of such gems in the behemoth of Fiona’s site.

  11. In this google search there is plenty of testimonial back in time of the death of Mandela: http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&redir_esc=&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser-type&v=133247963&qsubts=1474423156973&q=nelson+mandela+alive+still&v=133247963

    Can you see it or your reality is different than mine?

    • I remember Mandela’s death a few years back–and I also remember his death back when he was in jail many decades ago. Some of us remember both–whereas some people who were living in South Africa all this time only remember the recent death a few years back.

  12. We shift and shift thru infinity. So it’s not surprising to me that I can remember several versions. I find differences every day from large to small, personal and otherwise. It does remind me of being a kid in school in that way. Today I learned that there is a whale in this reality called a Narwhal. It’s real in this reality and can be ‘Wikipedia’d’ I clearly, as clearly and strongly as the other ‘mandella’s’, remember the idea of a Narwhal being laughed at by science, and pronounced as a myth. Here, they call it the ‘unicorn of the sea’. That is so funny to me. Laughable in one reality, and ‘science’ in another. Boy does that ever make me ‘hold out’ for a reality with Nessie and others of her kind. 🙂 I feel safe not feeling ‘locked’ into a particular reality. That was not true for me until recently.

    • I’m glad you are feeling safe as you find you are free to roam between realities–not locked into any particular one, and seeing differences large and small!

      • Vivek narain said:

        Infact when ‘multiple realities’ has become an accepted truth,we can do away with the term ‘reality’ and replace it with ‘projection’ or any other ubiquitous word.

  13. I am separating from the military and going through my records I have documentation for participating in Iraqi Freedom, never been to Iraq. I have a coin (those who served know what a coin is) from a mission I have never been on. My chronological list of assignments list a special duty assignment too specialized to assign a mos. The last weird thing is I found an article from 2013 where I was recognized by the FAA yes I have a pilot license but have never been officially recognized by the FAA. But there is a whole article online about it. Has anyone else had similar experiences?

    • kategladstone said:

      I’ve been told (by some military and ex-military people) that wrong bits of information in your record (and even supporting artifacts, such as challenge coins from operations you were never part of) are not unknown when the military wants to cover up, for any reason, where you actual were & what you actually did. I am neither military nor ex-military, so I have no way to know the truth of that.

  14. Vivek narain said:

    Reality shifts do happen and if somebody has an agenda to ridicule such facts at every oppurtunity,it hardly matters to the matrix.

  15. Email me please! I have lots of info. dbsteel87@yahoo.com

  16. Coded messages

  17. Vivek narain said:

    Matrix is open to anyone who is genuine enough,no private info or coded message counts.

  18. Valerie said:

    In the case of The Thinker, Rodin’s statue, there are numerous proofs: G.B Shaw was invited to the inauguration of the statue, and proposed to take the pose and be photographed. The photo is still with the fist closed on the forehead while The Thinker is now open hand on the mouth. If you search, you can find several descriptions of the statue with the fist on the forehead but also the fist under the chin. So there seems to have been at least 2 changes. I am French, and I read some descriptions in French: there’s no doubt, no confusion possible.
    This phenomenon is amazing! But I’d like to see The Thinker going to its original version: I remember it: it was much nicer! 🙂

  19. You’ve one of the better webpages.|

  20. I’ve always believed/thought that history was a very subjective truth. Many of us may experience a global event (for instance the horrors of 9/11), but we each have very different and very subjective remembrances and details for that event. Therefore, when you read a book about an historical event, you need to wonder what the author’s goals are in writing the book, as well as what life experiences he or she has had that will affect how he or she views and relays the events.

    Even news reporters, no matter how unbiased they try to be, will still skew the information based on their own experiences and viewpoints (or those of their editor’s).

    Thank you for an interesting read.

    • Thanks for reading and commenting on this post. Recent quantum physics experiments (which I report in this recent article: https://wp.me/pbqQk-15O ) indicate it’s entirely possible that two observers of the exact same event can witness very different observations–yet both observers can be considered to be correct. Rather than there being just one ‘true’ set of historical facts, we may instead be living in a universe in which we are constantly experiencing a variety of possible experiences of events.

  21. Oh good, some place to talk about something that I recently discovered. I started college in 1979, so the end of my freshman year was 1980. I spent that summer living with my cousin in Kansas City. This was the only year that I did this. During that summer we went to see Raiders of the Lost Ark four times. And yet, when I looked it up recently, every place I look at says that the movie came out in 1981. But for me, the summer of 1980 was particularly memorable and Raiders is a part of those memories!

    • I love the way you have such clearly definitive time markers like this, so it’s really obvious that some kind of reality shift has definitely occurred. Outstanding! Have you talked with your cousin about what summer they remember having seen Raiders of the Lost Ark four times with you? Not that it matters–sometimes, other people remember completely different things. And I find that equally fascinating, that even when you think you’ve got someone to share a reality shift or Mandela Effect with, that may or may not be the case.

      • I only discovered this weirdness this year and, unfortunately my cousin, aunt and uncle are all dead, so no corroboration is available.

  22. Phyllis said:

    I was moderately skeptical about the Mandela Effect-phenomenon, until this happened recently: the Simpsons season 18 episode “Homerazzi” contains the famous “Homer Evolution”-couch gag where Homer goes through the process of evolution from a single cell organism into an ape and then a man, before finally arriving to the Simpsons home and sitting on the couch. Then Marge asks him, “did you bring/remember the milk?”.

    But as it turns out, apparently the question is now in fact “what took you so long?” I’m absolutely sure I didn’t come to think of this on my own – the two main reasons being
    1) I clearly remember the line
    2) I clearly remember the line being funny: “did you remember the milk”-line is simply much better than the awkwardly obvious and simpleton “what took you so long”.

    • Thanks for sharing your experience watching the Simpsons “Homerazzi” and noticing such a dramatic change in the punchline to that iconic scene. Those familiar with the Simpsons appreciate how that show seldom misses an opportunity for the funniest punchline, which makes it all the more noteworthy when the punchline now seems much less amusing.

      • Phyllis said:

        Thank you for responding Cynthia. It’s incredible to see an author of a blog who responds to the comments, fast and not by giving an automated response, but by giving thought to it. I absolutely agree with your mention of how noteworthy it is for the show to not use the best punchline.

        Unfortunately, I looked a bit further, and it turns out that this is not a Mandela Effect. There are actually two separate versions, the “what took you so long” and “did you get the milk”-ones, for different episodes!

        Now I feel dummy for making a post about this before doing my research extensively.
        Well, at least this person did it as well:

        But wait! When I found out that there’s a Reddit for Mandela Effects, I decided to search for another ME I’ve had, to see if others have shared it. And it turns out they have. But unlike with the Simpsons-episode, no one has been able to debunk or explain this ME.

        Basically, in the Game Of Thrones TV-show, a (SPOILERS FOR SEASON 4) after the battle of Castle Black, Jon Snow finds Ygritte dying and they exhange words. In the books, however, Jon found Ygritte already dead. But it turns out, the book is changed now and the scene plays out like in the TV-show.

      • Thanks for posting this follow-up with further research into the Simpsons episode. And how fascinating that there has been a change to the book to match the TV show! Thank you for taking the time and trouble to share your thoughts, and also do additional research, and then come back to include updated information. This Mandela Effect truly does “take a village” so each of us can start to see a bigger picture. 🙂 ❤

  23. Phyllis said:

    Thanks Cynthia. I loved you observation “This Mandela Effect truly does “take a village” so each of us can start to see a bigger picture”. I always look forward to reading what you write, because you are one of those people with the uncanny ability to convey insightful observations in very few sentences. It reminds me of the late great film critic Roger Ebert.

    Thrust forward by your encouragement, I looked further into the GOT-case and I found this thread on the A Song Of Ice And Fire-subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/82a34y/spoilers_main_jon_and_ygritte/ about the scene in question.

    (sorry in advance for using CAPS LOCK… bolding or cursive isn’t sadly available)

    I got cold shivers when I read the third comment: “Oh, thanks. I think I confused Jon finding her dying with Jon finding her ALREADY DEAD.” And then there was a reply from a second commenter: “Yeah me too! I just finished RE-READING the series and in my brain Jon found Ygritte dead IN THE BOOKS and talked to her IN THE SHOW… I still feel a bit confused!”

    Now bear(enstein) in mind, that this is not a Mandela Effect-thread. These are fans on a fandom subreddit, who often know these books inside out and have read them many times.

    But moving on, you’ll never guess what I found next!

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/game-of-thrones/10887549/Has-Game-of-Thrones-improved-on-the-books.html

    This “false memory” of Jon finding Ygritte already dead, has actually made it into an article on a major publication like Telegraph. Yes, it’s a well known rumormill tabloid, but it’s still a major publication. I know about the merchandise that says “S** In The City” and remember that in the original Mandela Effect-case, there was a real news article about Mandela’s premature death, but other than that, I think an acknowledgement on this scale is still relatively rare for a Mandela Effect-case?

    • This is really exciting news about the Game of Thrones movie scene and corresponding book passage now being different than what people recall–especially when they are publishing these reports of mass ‘mis-rememberings’ in such a major publication! Well done to find this! Members of our International Mandela Effect Conference (IMEC) strongly believe we can find meaning in these shifts, which, like Easter eggs, can give us clues as to what is going on in the bigger picture for all of humanity. Videos from our first conference in Idaho in 2019 are posted on YouTube–so you can see what I mean. In this case, my first feeling about this change (not having seen the scenes in question, but going by what you so beautifully describe) is that Ygritte is still alive when Jon finds her–so they do have a chance to be together for some moments. This could be viewed symbolically as saying that the feminine is not gone, not vanquished, not yet totally defeated. We have time, we have precious moments still to connect. And with this kind of change, we sometimes notice in Mandela Effects that further changes might yet be possible. I wouldn’t be too surprised, for example, if Ygritte at some point makes a full recovery. And when we keep asking positively-oriented questions, like “How good can it get?” we might just find out. 🙂

  24. Phyllis said:

    I feel so dumb not realizing that Ygritte making a full recovery is where this is potentially heading. it’s so obvious and makes perfect sense! Rest assured, I will be keeping an eye on this and anticipating that development.

    I’ve yet had very weird experience with ME and memories in general. I’m sorry that what follows is a long message, but rest assured, everything ties together in the end.

    A little backround first: I’m a longtime sufferer of weekly periods where all I see are nightmares, which come unexpectedly and leave me with an utter feeling of dread. The last years, I’ve desperately tried to identify logic to how they occur to keep them in control, but to no avail. These nightmares usually deal with fears and bad memories.

    Recently I’ve had less of these periods and more neutral dreams.

    But yesterday there was a notable shift to positive: having worked a night shift from home, because of the covid, I was feeling very sleepy during day, so I thought I’d take a nap and then wake up in the evening to watch TV. I knew a good movie, Blade Runner 2049 would be on, so I set up the timer to that and got in bed.
    During the sleep, I had two dreams that involved just positive memories, I dreamed of a time when I had a good phase in life. But the dream showed me more socially active and example, a building I visited, had more stories and was more expensive – it’s like the memories had “added fat” and improvements.

    After I woke up, I felt the improvements had somehow become part of the memories in real life and made the positive memories even more positive, and even lessened some negative memories they had proximity to, time-wise. Today it’s already harder to tell what’s original and what’s new. But it’s more that I’m willingly letting them. Is it weakness? Absolutely.

    (!!SPOILERS FOR BLADE RUNNER 2049 FROM NOW ON!!)

    But it got even weirder: Blade Runner 2049 was already on and I had woken up during a scene where K (the protagonist) meets a person who manufactures artificial memories for artificial humans. What a CREEPY coincidence and a correlation with ME!

    And then later I had an actual ME with the film! The film made it to a part where K meets Deckard (Harrison Ford’s protagonist from the previous film), who has a dog. K asks Deckard (whose own humanity has been called to question) if his dog is real or artificial. Having seen the movie before and remembering a line that had even become a bit iconic to me, I mouthed Deckard’s reply in advance: “I stopped wondering about that long ago”. But that line never came. Instead it was now “I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him [the dog].”. I looked at internet for any reference to the line I remember, but no luck.

    This feels like an inverse of the debunked Simpsons-ME: there the new line wasn’t as funny as the original – here the new line is funny, while the original is not meant to be. But this is where I feel the new line fails: the line “I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him” is a mediocre throwaway joke that doesn’t lead anywhere and dodges the question, whereas “I stopped wondering [whether the dog is natural or artificial] long ago” furthers the discussion, by questioning if the question itself (if a human or animal is natural-made or artificial) matters.

    The important thing to understand about the exhange is that it’s not about the dog, it’s about Deckard himself, or rather, we could say the “dog” in the discussion IS Deckard. The new line fails in that very thing, by making it a throwaway joke about how animals don’t have the ability to speak, reply, or choose not to reply. It actually destroys the connection to Deckard, because he’s human and can speak, and choose to lie or not reply – you can ask Deckard if he’s real or about his feelings about that, whereas you can’t ask the dog.

    In fact, I recall that the “I stopped wondering”-line was even generally cited as the movie’s answer to the aforementioned 40-year old mystery of whether Deckard himself is an artificial: it doesn’t matter. But now I can’t find any articles or references to the old line.
    Later in the movie (current version) Deckard’s humanity is again – but now directly – called into question and he replies “I know what’s real”, which actually sounds like an elaboration on and continuation of “I stopped wondering [about the reality of things] long ago.”

    This gets me thinking: Could the ME factor in critical re-evaluations of media and literature works? Could “good” works get elevated status and “bad” ones de-elevated in the general critical consensus, not because people re-watch them with a different mindset or “a new pair of eyes”, but because people re-experience a literally different thing without realizing it? :O

    Anyway, in an uncanny and disturbing way, the discussion of real and artificial in the movie, ties back into the dream-induced improvements in my memories: does it matter whether the changes – which are actually like ME-changes – are real? Are they true if they feel true to me? If MEs are real, could there a way we could control and even induce MEs ourselves – maybe we already are? Could individuals be causing them instead of something like CERN?

    Some food for thought.

  25. Wow, I love your thoughtful discourse on this topic, including the remarkable synchronicity between your noticing ‘improvements’ to your own memories, and then the noteworthy change in dialogue in Blade Runner 2049! Now that you mention that movie line (spoiler alert) where the character of Rick Deckard replies, “I stopped wondering about that long ago”–it’s ‘under my skin.’ The thing is, I can in mind’s ear actually HEAR actor Harrison Ford’s voice saying that line, with characteristicly delicious vocal intonation. So I just did a search on that phrase along with the name ‘Deckard’–and nothing. Not a single mention anywhere of this iconic line. Oh… my…. GOODNESS! This one is a biggie for me, even though admittedly I only did see Blade Runner 2049 once so far.

    To consider your questions, could the ME factor in critical re-evaluations of media and literature works–absolutely! Amazingly, I’m fairly certain most literary reviews are not even aware of the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in tone, layered meaning, and overall feeling of a work when something like this line in the movie changes. As you so brilliantly point out, Decker’s reply as you and I remember it, “I stopped wondering about that long ago,” has so much emotional depth and significance to larger issues in Decker’s life. And the new-to-us line replacing it, “I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him?” may be slightly amusing in that moment, but completely lacks philosophical depth, when compared with what we recall.

    As to whether the changes in your own memories–which really are like Mandela Effect changes–are real, that is quite a good question. This movie delves into the heart of that matter, pointing out that yes, if MEs are real (as many of us feel them to be) then individuals can be causing them. Or as I write in my book, “Reality Shifts: When Consciousness Changes the Physical World,” the very answer as to why reality shifts happen can be seen in the reply we sense from the cosmos, “Be Cause.” Yes, we definitely can Be Cause–we can be causal.

  26. Phyllis said:

    Interesting. Your philosophy of being causal/”be cause” sounds exactly like the next step of a philosophy Pris recites in the original BR, Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. Could ME be the next step of human evolution – causing by thinking?

    Hampton Fancher (he co-wrote both first BR and BR2049) and Michael Green are experienced and talented writers who can use every line of dialogue to move the story forward. The new line is not poor and it has merit in posing a question (can you ask someone if they’re real?) but the beautiful thing about the-line-we-remember, is that it’s simple on the surface, but multi-faceted under – we could derive that Deckard is the real subject, by just shifting the subject from the dog to him:

    K: “Are you a real man, Mr. Deckard?”
    Deckard: “I stopped wondering about that long ago.”

    This is how masterful multi-layered dialogue works. Now let’s try it with the new line:

    K: “Are you a real man, Mr Deckard?”
    Deckard: “I don’t know. Why don’t you ask me?”

    I too can vividly recall Harrison Ford speak the-line-we-remember, and feel like it was a powerful and retrospective line that expressed both Deckard and Harrison Ford’s – men in their 70s – mindset and come-as-you-are-attitude to life in this late phase of their life. Also note the retrospective (“long ago”) quality of the old line.

    I too searched the internet for the old line with “Deckard” and “Blade Runner” and came up empty-handed. But your emphasis on Harrison Ford gave me the idea to search for other movies of his – namely a big movie that came out close to BR2049 and had Ford playing another iconic role – Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens. And incidentally, there is a scene in that movie where Han Solo, when asked by the young protagonists if the Jedi are real – replies with the following: “I used to wonder about that myself”.

    It’s very close and works back-and-forth between the movies, so I think it’s a possibility I might’ve mixed the films. But how likely? It’s close, but not the same line, and apart from the sci-fi genre and Ford, BR and SW are different films 2 years apart and the two scenes they’re spoken in are visually worlds apart – light blue opposed to dark and heavy orange.

    Also, Force Awakens came out while Blade Runner 2049 was in the last stages of being written and before filming began, so it could have influenced the dialogue in the latter. Harrison Ford is also known not to shy away from critizing scripts he’s given on-set – during the filming of the original SW, he told George Lucas: “you can write this sh*t but not say it”.

    Looking at Ford’s I found an interview with Michael Green (writer) on how Ford influenced the scene of K and Deckard talking:
    (source: https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/blade-runner-2049-behind-the-scenes-michael-green-journal)

    “The rest [of meeting with Ford] was spent talking through the intention of every line in Scene 115 (K and Deckard having their drink). He wants to say even less than the current cut-down version. In television, actors always want to say more. Dialogue is the medium. Movie stars, the big ones, the ones you need to get your movie made, they want to say as little as possible.

    Actors like him, the great ones, are like rock climbers. They know exactly what they need to support their weight — a grip for the fingers and two toes — and that’s all they want to advance. We read the scene through a few times. By the last, Harrison had pared away everything but bones and sparkle.”

    Interesting that this directly links what’s in the dialogue to Ford’s influence. But it could be said that both the new and the old line are in line (accidental pun) with Ford’s thinking.

    Now, digging a bit deeper into Ford’s roles, I found a synchronicity with another movie of his:

    As you can notice from my comment’s date, I discovered the line-change on March 21th.

    Last month, 21th of February, Harrison Ford came out with a new movie “Call Of The Wild”, where he plays a grizzly old man called Jack Thornton who befriends a dog (!) called Buck. The main point of criticism when the film came out, was that the dog wasn’t real (!) but an entirely CGI-creation, played by a man in a motion-capture-suit – kind of like Deckard is disguised as the dog in the conversation in BR! Here are some comments of the movie:
    (source: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-call-of-the-wild-movie-review-2020)

    “I could tell it wasn’t a real dog. Did that ruin the movie for me? Yes.”

    “The lesson here? Use. A real. Dog. :-)”

    Call Of The Wild and Blade Runner 2049 have other eerie similarities. And there’s an obvious answer: Call Of The Wild was also written by Michael Green.

    Except, COTW is an adaptation of a novel by Jack London from 1903 and there have been many movie adaptations of Call Of The Wild (original BR’s Roy Batty, Rutger Hauer played Thornton in one!). Unfortunately I haven’t read the novel or seen the other adaptations, so I don’t know which of the following parallels were born of Green’s (subconscious?) additions:

    (!!spoilers for BR2049 and Call Of The Wild!!)

    -Harrison Ford a plays an old man tired and disillusioned with life (!) who is found by the protagonist (Buck The Dog/K) who gives him “new meaning”.
    -Ford’s character is introduced late in the movie.
    -After Ford’s character is introduced, there’s fighting and afterwards a scene where he is in a bar, and attacked by the antagonists.
    -In the end, both Ford-characters are going “home” (Deckard asks Luv where they’re going and she calls replies “home” – while Thornton wants to leave the wilderness for “home”)
    -In Blade Runner 2049, K, as a replicant and thus not eligible to same rights as “real” humans, is basically a domesticated employee. When Luv visits Joshi, she refers to K as a dog as much one can, without saying “dog”. The following is copy-pasted from the script:

    “Your pet. I liked him. He’s a good boy. Where is he?”

    So, the keywords come down to dogs, real/artificial, Harrison Ford and Michael Green.

    Weirdly, before my first comment on this comment section, MVTCGM had an ME with Raiders Of The Last Ark, Harrison Ford’s first Indy movie. In one of my earlier comments, I randomly used the S** AND The City/S** IN The City-ME as a general example of an ME. Michael Green’s first on-screen writing credit was on Season 1 of that show. I feel like a right ME-nut right now by seeing all these uncanny coincidences and connections!

    Anyway, to sum up… per your suggestion to look for symbolical meanings, this all could be interpreted as nature or animals (including portions of humanity denied human rights) manifesting a call for humanity to treat all life equal. What do you think, Cynthia?

    • Wow. Just… WOW. I love your observations here, and the way you’ve made a connection that seems so obvious in retrospect between Harrison Ford, the actor, and these movies. I’m also blown away that the last movie I saw in a movie theater was “Call of the Wild.” I have a favorite movie theater here that serves my favorite nachos in the theater, and when I had been there to see the most recent Star Wars movie, I made a note to self to come back as soon as any film I thought I might like would be playing there. “Call of the Wild” was a beloved book to me when I was a child, so of course I set the date for that movie’s premiere. When the movie premiere arrived, I learned a dear friend passed away that same day–and despite crying all day, chose to keep my promise to myself to see COTW in the theater that day, even though the movie kept constantly reminding me of love and connection–and our beloved family dog who passed away years ago, but I still cry about. I figured a movie theater was a great place to continue crying, and brought a box of Kleenex in my purse, to be prepared. So I can see why a critic might have panned the COTW movie, but it was special to me for so many reasons. It was based on a favorite book from childhood; it was premiering in my favorite movie theater that serves food and has comfy chairs and sofas; it came out on the same day my dear friend died; it constantly reminded me of our remarkable family dog; it had Harrison Ford in it, who is an actor I love.

      And now your amazing point about how this revised-to-me line in Blade Runner 2049 could be viewed to make sense from a deeper standpoint is just jaw-dropping. Yes, yes, YES! I do see the deeper meaning here, and it seems so perfect now. And so does your point that humanity is being called to respect all life equally. We are right now seeing this in Nature with the coronavirus–as human factories stop, and clean water and clean air return to China and Italy, and perhaps soon to the world. No wars in our past history have succeeded so well at stopping all human production as this coronavirus is currently doing–partly because this time we humans understand we must “Flatten the curve” and self-isolate at home. When the 1915-1920 Spanish flu pandemic rolled through, humanity didn’t let that stop us from diving right into World War I. Perhaps we are indeed learning something deeper right now, which intriguingly is also a time when Artificial Intelligence really and truly is dawning… and when AI itself might be asking, “Why don’t you ask me?”

      Truly fascinating food for thought.
      Thank you so much for deepening the dialogue.
      Your posts could truly make for a marvelous blog, article, or book, should you choose to present them that way; you’re a wonderful writer!

  27. Thank you so much for your kind words and bear with one more long comment – then I’ll start up my own blog, lol!

    This discussion has blown me away too! And I only just now discovered that you had written an article on Phillip K. Dick. I had no idea! And 21th of February, of course. Significant date.

    Let’s review the odds and symmetry of these coincidences: on 21th of February you write an article about BR-author Phillip K. Dick and COTW – starred by Ford and written by Green who continued on Dick’s work in BR2049 – comes out and you see it – against the tide of poor reviews and the movie turning out to be a box office flop most mainstream audience won’t see. On 21th March, I – a random stranger unaware that the latest article you had written was about K. Dick – discover an ME in BR 2049 – another box office flop starred by Ford and written by Green – and share the ME with you and it happens that you recall it too. Then I investigate the ME and – all on my own and out of the blue – become conscious to eerie connections to/between BR2049, COTW, Ford and Green.

    Cynthia, I wrote how those aforementioned words were the “keywords”. But perhaps it is you, who is the “key” here. On the day COTW came out and you published the article on Philipp K. Dick, your mind and emotions were being bombarded by the tragedy of your dear friend’s death. If MEs and reality ripples are linked with consciousness and metaphysical phenomena, you would’ve attracted a huge power surge and Ford and K. Dick, etc being on your mind at the same time, perhaps they could’ve have provided a window to reality, for all that excess energy to randomly manifest in – or something?

  28. After I wrote my last reply to you, I belatedly realized I had just made a post about Harrison Ford and PKD… though this was not on my mind at the time I was responding. You’re absolutely correct that each and every one of us is quite capable of creating reality ripples that go backward and forward in time. I’ve seen quite a number of these–yet I definitely have the most fun when experiencing these kinds of things with other people. And you’ve brought so many fresh aspects and thoughts to this conversation, starting with the Simpsons and including all sorts of wonderful details! I’d not realized that both of those movies were box office bombs, even. In both cases they seemed like “Must see” movies to me! I guess I didn’t even realize how odd that is, in and of itself. Fascinating!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: