Retrocausality and the effects on a timeline

A

AgiTitor

Chrono Cadet
From Wikipedia, that describes it so much better than I can;

Retrocausality (also called retro-causation, retro-chronal causation, backward causation, and similar terms) is any of several hypothetical phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.
Click to expand...
Now that this is out of the way, where does the community at large stand on the topic? Personally I'm gravitating towards it as a solid theory because there seems to be serious research going into it. There's a growing movement behind something known as the Mandela Effect, and retrocausality seems to be the best way to explain that. I would expect most of us here are aware of the Mandela Effect in some way, either by its namesake or the more culturally relevent and popular Berenstain Bears phenomenon.I have to describe my personal theory about reality, before I can explain my thoughts on RC, but I'm not very good at explaining things, so bear with me. I believe there is one singular reality, but that it functions like a clock. I.E., it keeps ticking forwards and eventually will loop back on itself, but that it can be manipulated. The manipulations I can best explain using a metaphor - you can push the hands back, but the clock will keep ticking forwards anyways, once it can pick back up.

To me, retrocausality is a fascinating theory because it would be the means to push the hands back, change the perception of time. Since time is a linear, singular entity, the distortion will occur, but it will eventually right itself enough to keep going, nature balancing itself, what-have-you. The Mandela Effect comes in to play there, by having people who experience different timelines co-existing in one, because of a hiccup in time causing both to be temporarily true.

this is all my interpretation, nothing solid. I have no background in anything that might substantiate my theory, which is why I came here to ask others their opinions on it.

 
I always remember the books being called the Berenstein Bears, never remember it being called Berenstain Bears.

I have read a couple of comments in this forum about an anime cartoon called Stein Gate. I wonder if the two are connected? ;) Beren"stein" & Stein....lol.

 
It's part of the processes collectively called cognition (or your brain's internal spell checker)

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.*

Stain and Stein are common surnames or part of the surname. That even 50% of people might remember the name one way and the other 50% the other way is no big deal, except to those that wish to make it so. It is simply a mistake; a misinterpretation, as is the whole Mandela Effect phenomenon. When people don't understand the reason for something, they tend to "make up" reasons they feel fit the situation.

*This text appeared on the internet in 2003 and is multi-sourced but, interestingly, denied by Cambridge University.

"This text circulated on the internet in September 2003. I first became aware of it when a journalist contacted a my colleague Sian Miller on 16th September, trying to track down the original source. It's been passed on many times, and in the way of most internet memes has mutated along the way. It struck me as interesting - especially when I received a version that mentioned Cambridge University! I work at Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, in Cambridge, UK, a Medical Research Council unit that includes a large group investigating how the brain processes language. If there's a new piece of research on reading that's been conducted in Cambridge, I thought I should have heard of it before..."

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/

More info if you want.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070307073659/http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~pjm21/papers/LCP.pdf

 
Large Snip
Click to expand...
That might explain one instance, but it doesn't explain the myriad of others, such as the aforementioned Nelson Mandela instance. Nelson Mandela died fairly recently, but this is clashing with a lot of people who seem to share a collective memory that Nelson Mandela died in prison, which had large effects on the Apartheid policy of the time. Even in America, this was a big deal and a lot of people sincerely believe that the died in the 80's.Or the apparent split involved with Eddie Murphy no less - apparently, his death was just a hoax. Still, people remember seeing TV interviews about movies he was scheduled to be in being cancelled, even seeing news articles about his funeral.

I can understand the brain making one false connection, but these are happening on a wide scale and most people remember different events in astonishing and vivid detail that matches other individuals testimonies, even when the people involved have never had contact.

 
Stain and Stein are common surnames or part of the surname. That even 50% of people might remember the name one way and the other 50% the other way is no big deal, except to those that wish to make it so. It is simply a mistake; a misinterpretation, as is the whole Mandela Effect phenomenon. When people don't understand the reason for something, they tend to "make up" reasons they feel fit the situation.
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying, but I personally do not even consider the Berenstein/Berenstain debate as being part of the "Mandela Effect" phenomenon.

 
Many consider it a "changed" history. It's similar in that context. The Mandela Effect, its self, is simply misperception, misinterpretation, misinformation, and failure to follow up on a news story or rumor. It is not, proof of an alternate history, or a change made in the past by... ?? ... some unknown entity? It IS evidence of the fallibility of memory. This has been demonstrated, time after time, when comparing witness testimony to the same event at the same time, even two people standing right next to one another might not agree.

 
From Wikipedia, that describes it so much better than I can;Now that this is out of the way, where does the community at large stand on the topic?
Click to expand...
If you're going to quote from a Wiki page marked as having multiple issues you could at least give a full quote. I'll do it for you:

Retrocausality (also called retro-causation, retro-chronal causation, backward causation, and similar terms) is any of several hypothetical phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.Retrocausality is primarily a thought experiment in philosophy of science based on elements of physics, addressing whether the future can affect the present and whether the present can affect the past.[1] Philosophical considerations of time travel often address the same issues as retrocausality, as do treatments of the subject in fiction, although the two terms are not universally synonymous.[2]

While some discussion of retrocausality is confined to fringe science or pseudoscience, a few physical theories with mainstream legitimacy have sometimes been interpreted as leading to retrocausality. This has been problematic in physics because the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level within the field of physics.
Click to expand...
 
Many consider it a "changed" history. It's similar in that context. The Mandela Effect, its self, is simply misperception, misinterpretation, misinformation, and failure to follow up on a news story or rumor. It is not, proof of an alternate history, or a change made in the past by... ?? ... some unknown entity? It IS evidence of the fallibility of memory.
Click to expand...
Can I ask, do you believe in alternate realities?

 
Can I ask' date=' do you believe in alternate realities?[/quote']By definition, no. Alternate means to switch back and forth. Reality is what it is, it does not switch daily.Different realities, absolutely. Everyone's interpretation is their own. I can not see through your eyes, therefore I can not see things exactly as you see them.There is a unanimity of a common prevalent reality on which things like the Laws of Physics and Nature are based. Individuals though, can see as many different realities as there are opinions, they are similar.
Click to expand...
 
By definition, no. Alternate means to switch back and forth. Reality is what it is, it does not switch daily..
Click to expand...
Yes, while alternate can mean to switch back and forth, it can also be another term for alternative or could mean replacement/substitute etc.From your previous posts, I know of your faith. In the bible, God presented the prophet Amos with an alternative reality, a reality depicting the consequences that would affect Israel if they did not change their ways. Amos purportedly witnessed another reality. There are people today who purportedly witnessed another reality; a reality whereupon Nelson Mandela died in the 1980's. These folks have clear memories of the televised funeral, they have memories of Winnie Mandela's insincere tribute; they have clear memories of the oddly shaped headed body guard of Winnie Mandela etc. If God did present an alternative reality, and Amos did experience it, then is it beyond the realms of possibility that others have experienced an alternative reality?

Anyway, time for bed. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 
A vision or prophecy is not an alternate reality in the sense it is usually presented. It is a future reality that may come to be, unless something in the present reality is changed or, regardless of change, it is coming. It is not a past, remembered differently.

I hope you slept well. :zzz:

 
The effects of false information or lies having an effect on the world is not related to time travel, if so, Shakespeare´s last scene of Romeo and Juliette would be in the fantasy and sci-fi section.

 
A vision or prophecy is not an alternate reality in the sense it is usually presented. It is a future reality that may come to be, unless something in the present reality is changed or, regardless of change, it is coming. It is not a past, remembered differently.I hope you slept well. :zzz:
Click to expand...
Yep, had a good night's sleep thanks. The kids are now at school, and my wife is at work and I have a bit of time to myself."It is not a past, remembered differently."

But who says the Mandela effect is a past, remembered differently? That seems to be the common assumption or concensus of opinion.

What I'm suggesting is this: What IF the people who experienced Mandela's death in the 80's had in fact experienced a similar experience to the prophet Amos? What if they somehow were presented with a future reality that may have come to be? Food for thought, don't you think?

 
What I'm suggesting is this: What IF the people who experienced Mandela's death in the 80's had in fact experienced a similar experience to the prophet Amos? What if they somehow were presented with a future reality that may have come to be? Food for thought, don't you think?
Click to expand...
It's possible, I imagine, but I imagine that many people having such an experience would be a bit unlikely but considering the subject I probably shouldn't throw stones. It does have a certain appeal to it, many people seeing the future of a world without Nelson Mandela. Kind of a Dickensian move, and would probably make one fine novel.I don't know if it's people simultaneously living in multiple timelines, and that it's whichever one is dominant at any given second that's we're in. I could have crossed back and forth ten times in the few seconds it took me to write this sentence but that any differences are so distant or minute that I'll never notice. It's when people do notice that interests me, because now we live in a world with instant and permanent communication, and we'll report how bad our after-curry cramps are acting up on Twitter.

And for the record, I'm not backing the Berenstain VS Berenstein Bears as a theory, I just wanted to use it as an example because it's one the most easily understandable issues people report, and that people decide almost instantaneously whether or not they remember it one way or another. The Nelson Mandela incident isn't so obvious, but it's a much, much better example of the concept I was trying to discuss. I don't word gud sometimes.

 
In this case, because there is no reference to it until "after" his actual death in 2013.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. People have mentioned having "memories" of Mandela's death on Robben Island since early 2002 (that is the earliest reference I have come across).My contention is that these alleged "memories" are not of an "alternate" past history. It is also my contention that a select few had not somehow transversed (temporarily) into a parallel earth. I'm suggesting that they could have experienced something similar to what the Prophets from the old days experienced, i.e. a glimpse into a "what-if" reality. I hope this make sense.

 
It's possible, I imagine, but I imagine that many people having such an experience would be a bit unlikely but considering the subject I probably shouldn't throw stones. It does have a certain appeal to it, many people seeing the future of a world without Nelson Mandela. Kind of a Dickensian move, and would probably make one fine novel.I don't know if it's people simultaneously living in multiple timelines, and that it's whichever one is dominant at any given second that's we're in. I could have crossed back and forth ten times in the few seconds it took me to write this sentence but that any differences are so distant or minute that I'll never notice. It's when people do notice that interests me, because now we live in a world with instant and permanent communication, and we'll report how bad our after-curry cramps are acting up on Twitter.And for the record, I'm not backing the Berenstain VS Berenstein Bears as a theory, I just wanted to use it as an example because it's one the most easily understandable issues people report, and that people decide almost instantaneously whether or not they remember it one way or another. The Nelson Mandela incident isn't so obvious, but it's a much, much better example of the concept I was trying to discuss. I don't word gud sometimes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do find the whole "Mandela Effect" quite fascinating. The sensible side of me is telling me that I should apply occams razor, but the curious side of me wonders if the phenomenon can be explained by unfounded, speculative theories such as mass hypnosis, a mass vision, parallel realities etc etc.

 
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. People have mentioned having "memories" of Mandela's death on Robben Island since early 2002 (that is the earliest reference I have come across).
Click to expand...
Can you direct me to that reference?

 
Back
Top