Separating the Mandela Effect From Memory

a reply to: In4ormant

You have perfectly good, sound, PROVEN reasons why you are experiencing this confusion and yet fail to acknowledge it.

It has not been proven that any specific reason is the cause of this. You keep repeating an untruth.

I just want to know why a person does such a thing.

I already told you my perspective.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

I'd love the world to be more interesting sometimes but I'm not going to cancel my subscription to science to deceive myself.

The Multiverse is a possibility acepted by a part of the scientific community so the base concept is not completely unheard of. I think Quantum Physics also point to our reality existing at levels we can't graps yet.

Occam's Razor

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

You have perfectly good, sound, PROVEN reasons why you are experiencing this confusion and yet fail to acknowledge it.

It has not been proven that any specific reason is the cause of this. You keep repeating an untruth.

I just want to know why a person does such a thing.

I already told you my perspective.

It has been proven. This is one of many. People just don't want to read the truth. I can't make people read and comprehend the science. If they want to say it's not proven while never reading the papers and studies well, what can you do. I can't convince you the bears behind you if you won't turn around.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: In4ormant

The only one not listening is you. Your source only proves that this affects human memory in some cases, and does not and cannot specify in which cases.

Otherwise it must say that we can't remember anything right. Is this the case?

Nothing regarding the ME has been, or can be proven or disproven.

a reply to: In4ormant

Occam's Razor

You seem to be under the impression that the "most logical" explanation is the only possible correct explanation. Is this what you think, or what it means?

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
Because of your superior intelligence?

In this instance, correct.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

Occam's Razor

You seem to be under the impression that the "most logical" explanation is the only possible correct explanation. Is this what you think, or what it means?

You don't seem to understand the idea of Occam's Razor. It doesn't really determine whether a proposition is more logical than another.

It first requires two equally likely propositions. Timeline shift vs bad memory. Not equally likely.

But let's say they are equal. Which one requires more assumptions?
Bad memory requires one assumption. That memory is subject to outside influences.
Timeline shift (or time manipulation) requires first that such things are possible and then that such things are being done and then that such things are being done to select individuals.

pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

a reply to: noonebutme

And this is based on your thought process taking place within the confines of this little box, which was created around you by others?

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

Occam's Razor

You seem to be under the impression that the "most logical" explanation is the only possible correct explanation. Is this what you think, or what it means?

I granted you that dimension shifts and faulty memories were equal. Even doing that, your theory comes up short every time.

a reply to: Phage

You don't seem to understand the idea of Occam's Razor. It doesn't really determine whether a proposition is more logical than another. It first requires two equally likely propositions. Timeline shift vs bad memory. Not equally likely.

No, I was pointing out what seems to his interpretation of it. I am not the one using it wrong, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

But let's say they are equal. Which one requires more assumptions? Bad memory requires one assumption. That memory is subject to outside influences. Timeline shift (or time manipulation) requires first that such things are possible and then that such things are being done and then that such things are being done to select individuals.

And now you are doing the exact same thing, suggesting that the most logical explanation is the right one which is a fallacy and a non argument when it comes to drawing absolute conclusions about unprovable phenomena.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: Phage

You don't seem to understand the idea of Occam's Razor. It doesn't really determine whether a proposition is more logical than another. It first requires two equally likely propositions. Timeline shift vs bad memory. Not equally likely.

No, I was pointing out what seems to his interpretation of it. I am not the one using it wrong, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

But let's say they are equal. Which one requires more assumptions? Bad memory requires one assumption. That memory is subject to outside influences. Timeline shift (or time manipulation) requires first that such things are possible and then that such things are being done and then that such things are being done to select individuals.

And now you are doing the exact same thing, suggesting that the most logical explanation is the right one which is a fallacy and a non argument when it comes to drawing absolute conclusions about unprovable phenomena.

You guys have the best CT ever. It can't be proven, you dismiss any idea that it can be disproven because no study specifically states the Mandela Effect. All you need to justify it is your own memories.

The ufo guys have lights and pics at least.
Bigfoot guys have some footprints or hairs.
Flat earthers have some fancy flight path slides to toss around.

You guys get to just think stuff up! Brilliant!

a reply to: CollidinParticules

And now you are doing the exact same thing, suggesting that the most logical explanation is the right one which is a fallacy and a non argument when it comes to drawing absolute conclusions about unprovable phenomena.

Putting aside the fact that it is more logical to assume faulty memory as the "cause." Occam's razor does not say that. It simply says that if it is necessary to pile on more and more unfounded assumptions, it makes that explanation a lot less likely to be correct.

a reply to: Phage

Occam's razor does not say that.

Again, I am not saying it does. I just explained this to you, not sure why you didn't get it.

It simply says that if it is necessary to pile on more and more unfounded assumptions, it makes that explanation a lot less likely to be correct.

Yes but not impossible, which is what you both seem to be implying. If you are not doing this, then why are you using Occams Razor as a basis for absolute statements about the existance of such a thing as the ME?

a reply to: In4ormant

You guys have the best CT ever. It can't be proven, you dismiss any idea that it can be disproven because no study specifically states the Mandela Effect. All you need to justify it is your own memories.

See this is the problem. You think this is a match, and that "we" are using this "unfair" advantage in order to win it, when in fact, we don't even want to argue about it with people who are obviously obsessed with making sure everyone conforms to their rigid and small perspective.

Guess I was right then when I said you were angry because you can't disprove it.

Why don't you just walk away from it. How refreshing would that be. Try it.

Why waste more time on the best CT ever?

a reply to: CollidinParticules

If you are not doing this, then why are you using Occams Razor as a basis for absolute statements about the existance of such a thing as the ME?

Where did I do that?

The point is that absurdly far fetched assumptions are not required to explain the "effect." Is it impossible that such assumptions are, in fact, the cause? No, but what is fascinating is that some people feel they are necessary in order to explain it. They aren't.

a reply to: Phage

Where did I do that?

The poster I was having a discussion with seemed to be doing this and then you joined in.

No, but what is fascinating is that some people feel they are necessary in order to explain it. They aren't.

They only aren't becaue you have already decided it is due to bad memory. It's the same fallacy, just because they are not needed to explain it, doesn't mean they are not the correct explanations.

All you keep saying is that the most logical explanation is the only one that should be considered.

a reply to: CollidinParticules

All you keep saying is that the most logical explanation is the only one that should be considered.

No. I didn't say that.
I said I don't understand the need to go beyond it. I'm trying to, but so far no luck.

a reply to: Phage

That's exactly the same thing. You don't see the need to consider it. Because you have decided it can only be due to faulty memory.

Why are people arguing the most about the weaker evidence presented in this thread? In the following video we have newspaper clippings with advertisements for "Fruit Loops" cereal. The "misspelling" argument is not going to work with that. Does anyone honestly think that professional advertising people misspelled the product they were paid to advertise in a case like "Fruit" versus "Froot"? We've also got "Chic-fill-A" written about in newspaper stories. Misspellings?


www.youtube.com...

The following video offers great evidence for the Mendela Effect outside of memory. How in the world were spellings that are alternative currently the more popular searches in Google just a few years ago?

How will the 'debunkers' deal with this one? They have to make up "reasons" (i.e. assumptions) for each and every case. After you keep adding enough assumptions, the probability that you're right drops to nearly zero. That's the direction they're heading in.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Profusion
That's an unprovable, unfalsifiable assumption.

No worse that your ridiculous Mandela theory.

But at least mine IS provable -- I remember it from a child and remember it now. Its the same in scripts, dvds, tapes, blurays, LDs, etc -- no difference.

You are the one who is wrong and has a bad memory.

I have no "Mandela theory." If you believe I've posted one, please quote it.

You're using the "bad memory" theory to try to explain every instance of why someone would remember "LIAYF" and not "NIAYF." We have many possible scenarios that explain why that could happen other than "bad memory" and "parallel universes."

Here are some other possibilities:

1. There could be copies of the film out there that were censored in different ways. For instance, some governments edit things from films in order to allow them to be shown in their countries. It's conceivable that the word "No" could have been changed to "Luke."

2. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitle translations. Someone who's going by the subtitles only (not being able to understand the English) could understand "No" as "Luke."

3. There could be copies of the film out there with bad overdubbings in other languages. The word "No" may have been dubbed as "Luke."

4. George Lucas may have been up to his old tricks with editing. He could conceivably have edited some copies secretly.

5. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitles in English. Hearing impaired people could be reading "Luke" when it should read "No."

There are five more theories (outside of the alternate reality theory) that are also possible.

Your theory may be probable but nothing is definite here.

originally posted by: Phage
Bad memory requires one assumption.

One assumption for each reported Mendela Effect. That means if you have a person reporting dozens of separate Mandela Effects, you have to assume that bad memory is the cause of each separate reported Mandela Effect. That means that you're making dozens of separate assumptions for that one person alone. If you have a million people reporting an average of 10 Mandela Effects each and you're going to claim the "bad memory" theory is the answer every time, you've made at least 10 million separate assumptions.

I believe Occam's razor suggests that the "most probable answer is bad memory" theory is not a good theory at all.

Why?

If millions of people come forward to all report that they believe they've experienced the Mandela Effect for any particular thing; in order to believe that the "bad memory" theory is the answer you have to assume a faulty memory for every one of those millions of people.

That's millions of separate assumptions; it is not one assumption.

It is a very poor theory for that reason IMHO. I find it to be absurd and not even worth considering for that reason.

Adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality

As I stated in the thread linked to above, adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality. The problem with the Mandela Effect is that it takes assumptions to explain it.

I just wish people who were trying to "debunk" it would understand that the assumptions they're making are often just as unlikely as the assumptions Mandela Effect believers are making in their theories to explain the phenomenon.

The reason I've ignored the Mandela Effect up until now is because I think it's pointless to discuss because of all the assumptions people on both sides of the issue are making.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly the same thing. You don't see the need to consider it. Because you have decided it can only be due to faulty memory.

Correct.

I don't see the need to consider absurdly far fetched notions when the inaccuracy of memory is a well known phenomenon. I find that need to be fascinating.