Okay, I'm gonna take the bait.

> Sort of a quantum superposition, which collapses the wavefront in different ways for different people? Maybe tie in multiple universes somehow, and events shift from one to the other.

Then the observers with differing memories would actually live in different "multiverse tracks" (different universes with a common origin in the past) and would never interact with each other, ever again.

The fact that they can interact, even indirectly via a 3rd party like a cross-examiner, is proof that they live in the same worldtrack, and therefore the wave has "collapsed" the same way for both.

So talking about something that happens on a very very small scale as if it should happen on a large one? You sound like Depak Chopra.

But don't worry we will have something similar to this in the not so distant future when editing video footage quickly and with picture perfect results makes it hard to determine if evidence is real.

> Would certainly be interesting if true :)

Yes, except it's psuedoscientific crazy talk.

If by pseudo-scientific you mean difficult/impossible to falsify then I'd agree with you. If you mean gobbledy gook then I would disagree.

There are some number of theorists that are working with multiple universe theories defined by 'choices' in the quantum world. Its hard to prove that such things exist (or don't exist) but one notion has that detangling a photon from its entangled counterpart has you "actualizing" in one of two possible universes. The GP thread posits macroscopic effects of that, which is both impossible to prove and an interesting conjecture.

The GP posits interactions between the several possible universes, in the sense that I am from universe A and am litterally talking to someone from universe B. While it is conceivable that this type of cross universe interaction is possible, it is not at all possible in our current understanding of physics, and if it where possible, it would have to be possible in a very subtle way or else we would have already noticed it (in the same sense that relativity breaks Newtons laws in a very subtle way).

Assuming that such interactions our possible, we have no reason to believe that the macroscopic effects would be to transfer intact memories between universes, or for the universes to be similar enough for us not to notice this effect explicitly, but different enough for events to occur differently for different people.

Fair enough.

I'm not an adherent to the many worlds interpretation, and I claim no specific expertise in this space. That said, I read your comment as implying that a MWI would be, by definition, acyclic? To be honest I was thinking that might not be the case on the theory that you could arrive at the same universe by many paths. Some part of me wants infinity constrained slightly :-)

Only the memory is transfered from one universe to another, not the actual event.

And because people don't usually falsely remember things in a way that is inconsistent with how things turned out only subtle changes would be transfered.

This is just an idea I'm playing with for fun, I'm not trying to start new physics.

However, the issue is, is that if this did occur, we could assume the same effect would be observable in recordings.

If you can find video recordings of the same event happening differently, then this would be interesting.

The idea is that what actually happened is what the video shows, but my memory shows what could have happened if the waveform collapsed the other way.

The whole thing is that people don't remember falsely things that are in contradiction with how things played out.

They remember thing falsely in a way that could have actually happened - that's why they believe them.

So you would never have a memory like this that would be impossible - it would only be little things that could have gone either way.

Everything was "psuedoscientific [sic!] crazy talk" before it was widely recognized in the science world.

Thats a good example of something that is technically true but not useful. Like saying that all great men were once babies.

I don't think so. Those great men (and women) thought to once be babies were in fact once babies. Whereas those truths thought once to be pseudo-scientific crazy talk were actually truths all along. Thinking they were crazy talk was a mistake, and we can use that lesson to avoid repeating the mistake. Useful.

Is that a bad thing? It's a thought experiment.

What is the point of this thought experiment? If I know I am looking for a certain thing in a thought experiment, than I might be able to suspend disbelief on the other parts, but without knowing what I am looking for, all I see are the inherit inconsistencies in the universe you posit.

It doesn't really have a point. I was just trying to find a way to make it possible for people to actually remember different things and both to be correct.

So like I remember one thing, but once the waveform collapsed it ended up being different. But my memories are either of what could have been (the other state of the waveform), or alternately memories from a different universe.

I thought it was an interesting idea so I wrote it. I'm not trying to start new physics.