Click to confirm you are 18+

Part 6 Montauk Project anyone?

Talon123Oct 2, 2018, 4:56:01 PM

multiverse be a worthy way for God to create? ( yes, but... )

Yes, I agree with Robert in preferring (aesthetically and theologically) a single universe — cleverly designed by God so it will support human life — instead of a cleverly designed multiverse.

But whatever way God chose to create, we should say (and I'm sure Robert agrees) that "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." (Revelation 4:11, NIV)

And I agree with Robert that, despite this ultimate humility, in our current state of “not knowing how God created” we should use whatever we do know (when all things are considered, theologically and scientifically) to think about how God created, and to explain what we're thinking. That is what Robert and I are trying to do, in his paper and my page, and in other ways. {more about methods of creation and appropriate humility}

Parts-of-Paper and Whole Paper: Although I've tried to describe Robert's views accurately, I want to help you understand quickly so I've been selective by quoting some parts but not others. Therefore, if you want to know what he says and how, you should read his paper, The Puzzle of Existence.

Quotations in this page are from my page AP/MaoID== and The Puzzle of Existence by Robert Mann. {other presentations by Robert Mann}

Locations for Quotations: To help you know “where to look” so you can see the context of the parts I'm quoting, and what he says in-between, I'll use a system to show the quotation-location. For example, the first citation below is labeled "147L6-147R9" in two parts that show the beginning & ending of the quoting. The right-side table shows 18 parts of page 147, including 147L6 and 147R9. The location of "147 L 6" is on page 147, on the left side (L), a little more than halfway down (6). Similarly, "147R9" is on page 147, on Right side, near the bottom (9). I've assembled the paragraph below by using excerpts within this range, from 147L6 to 147R9.

Formats for Quotes & Non-Quotes & Comments: In this page, regular quotation marks (like "these two") show that I'm quoting Robert's paper or my AP/MaoID; and “smart quotes” are used for non-quotations; and my comments are in [square brackets]. To clarify who is saying what, many paragraphs begin with RM (Robert Mann) or CR (Craig Rusbult) so you'll know whose ideas are being described. {other papers & talks by Robert Mann}

page 147

147L1 147R1

147L2 147R2

147L3 147R3

147L4 147R4

147L5 147R5

147L6 147R6

147L7 147R7

147L8 147R8

147L9 147R9

A Duplication Dilemma ? (this would not be a problem for Christian theology)

RM: As an example to illustrate "a number of subordinate interrelated problems that science and theology must both contend with in the context of a multiverse paradigm," Robert Mann describes {in 147L6-147R9} the Duplication Dilemma: "Consider a universe that is infinite in spatial extent and in which there is an unbounded amount of energy [note by CR: this is one of the proposed mechanisms for producing an "infinite" multiverse, and it correctly illustrates the weirdness that would occur in the infinite multiverse that is proposed by some scientists], everywhere obeying the laws of physics in our observable patch. ... By simply allowing matter and energy to realize all possible configurations that are permitted by the known laws of physics [which would produce an infinite number of actualized universes, each having different initial conditions and thus different histories, even though each actualized universe is the same universe-type and thus has the same properties of nature]... there is enough time, space, and matter to realize all possible known configurations of every allowed physical system" so "any given physical system, individual, or society will experience everything it can experience." And what about you? "Since human DNA has a finite number of configurations, your body will have a duplicate in this infinite universe." In fact, "such duplicates will occur infinitely many times" so you (via your duplicates) will experience everything you can experience, because "all possible social, psychological, and physical outcomes occur" so "at any given instant in which you made an apparent choice, there is an equivalent situation somewhere out there in which your duplicate made a different choice. If you have ever wondered what life might be like if you had not met your spouse, taken that job, or passed that test, you can be confident that somewhere else in the multiverse your duplicates have had these experiences."

CR: This does seem strange, until we remember Principle #2 which is the fact that YOU only experience what is happening to you here-and-now in our universe. IF there is an immense multiverse, your experience would not be any different than it is now. Even though the potential "duplication" sounds strange when it's described in vivid language, the strangeness is only in your imagination; in your actual experience, nothing would occur that is unusual in any way.

CR: And when RM asks you to "Consider a universe..." he should say (and he would agree) “Imagine a universe...” because any type of multiverse is speculative (so it must be imagined) and an infinite multiverse is physically impossible, as explained in Principle #1. Therefore we should ask, “Would duplication be an actual problem, or only an imagined problem that occurs only in imaginative speculations about ‘everything’ (not just many things) happening in an impossible infinite multiverse?”

If Duplicates Exist, We Are Not Unique (this would not be a problem)

RM: "Duplication poses interesting theological challenges,... [especially] a loss of uniqueness. If I am replicated many times in the multiverse, in what sense can I be understood to be a child of God, being worth more than many sparrows? To be sure, loss of uniqueness is a theological issue, one too easily dismissed by its critics. {148L4-148L5}"

CR: No, duplication is not a "theological challenge." Yes, it can be "easily dismissed" because we have a common practical precedent in our world (where ‘duplication’ is not considered a problem for identical twins) plus three logical reasons (based on three rational principles for thinking about an imaginary strangeness if “everything happens”) that are explained in my AP/MaoID:

First, remember Principle #1 and ask, “Would duplication be an actual problem, or only an imagined problem that occurs only in imaginative speculations about ‘everything’ happening in an infinite multiverse that is physically impossible?”

Second, remember Principle #2. Even if duplicates exist, this would not be a theological problem because each person (you and the genetic duplicate) would be living independently — with no knowledge of the other person — in different universes, and God would hold each of you morally accountable for the way you live, for your decisions and actions in your own here-and-now situations. This would be similar to identical twins (having the same DNA, and usually the same family environment) living in our world now, which causes no theological problems because God holds each twin accountable, as an individual person, for the way they live. If identical twins are not a problem for God (if He "approves" of these humans, as described in Principle #2h) then we should not consider twins to be a theological problem; and if actual twins (that do occur) are not a problem, potential duplicates (that might occur) are also not a problem.

Third, remember Principle #3. Judeo-Christian monotheists who believe the Bible will believe that God is sovereign. We should reject an atheistic interpretation of a multiverse. Instead, when we think about “many things happening” we should view this as “only things allowed by God” because God has sovereign control over everything that occurs everywhere in His creation. If God created an immense multiverse, He could decide that life will exist only on our Earth — and He could achieve this goal in two ways, either by miraculously creating life only on Earth (if life cannot be naturally produced by a chemical evolution from non-living chemicals) or (if life can and does naturally evolve) by “killing the life” whenever it occurs on other planets — and this is what would occur, no more and no less; or God could also create life, or allow life, in other places in our universe, or in more than one universe, perhaps in an immense number of universes. And whatever God decides — whether it's life only on Earth, or also on other planets, or also in other universes — that is fine with me, and is compatible with what the Bible teaches.

a general comment: In agreement with Robert, I personally would prefer (for aesthetic and theological reasons) to live in a designed single-universe. But, to a greater extent than Robert, I think a designed multiverse-universe is compatible with Bible-based Christian theology. By contrast, I think one type of proposed multiverse is not compatible with Christian theology:

MWI - Duplicates in Quantum-Split Histories? (this WOULD be a major problem)

As explained above and below, "duplicates" would not be a problem (practical, philosophical, or theological) in a normal multiverse. But in one very strange type of proposed multiverse — which is not mentioned in Mann's paper — duplicates would be a theological problem, although not a practical problem. { In a common classification system what I'm calling a "normal multiverse" is Levels 1 or 2, and the "very strange" multiverse is Level 3. }

Going beyond the scientific assertions of quantum physics, a Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) proposes that during each quantum interaction every possible result is physically actualized in a different branch of history, with each branch actually happening in its own physical universe. { Why is MWI not necessary, and not useful? }

If this quantum-splitting occurs, it would produce an unimaginably immense number of branching histories because the universe contains a huge number of elementary particles, and these are continually (often zillions of times each second) involved in quantum-interactions that would produce MW-Splitting, and each interaction has a huge number of possible quantum-results; IF every possible result, from each quantum interaction in the universe, produces a different branch of history during one instant of time, during the following instant each of these branches will be split-again into an immense number of different results, and this continuous sequential branching would have occurred zillions of times every second for the past 13.8 billion years, producing an exponentially growing number of history-branches. Wow!

All of these histories would occur in worlds having the same universe-type, and all begin with the same initial conditions, so an MWI-multiverse would not be useful in a non-design explanation for the fine tuning of our universe. But MWI is useful for arguing against design-directed action during the history of nature, since everything that (with non-zero probability) could happen — including a natural origin of life and all of its possible developments during biological evolution — would happen in some branches of history, and these branches would be (due toanthropic selection) where we are.

What theological problems occur with a Many Worlds Interpretation?

A. Identity and Accountability: In an MWI-multiverse,

in almost all branches of mwi-history, you were never born;

but in a few branches, you were born and then during your life you “say YES to God” and are reconciled with Him;

and in a few branches, you were born and then you “say NO to God.”

In this situation, which “history of you” would be used by God for accountability, for evaluating your moral/spiritual thoughts and actions? The basic problem is that an MWI-multiverse (if it really exists, but I don't think it does) would destroy the here-and-now principle that makes duplication a non-problem in other types of hypothetical multiverses where "you only experience what is happening to you here-and-now" (this would stay the same with MWI) and (here is the big difference with MWI) if duplicates exist, "God would hold each of you morally accountable for the way you live, for your decisions and actions in your own here-and-now situations." By contrast, with MWI you have zillions of duplicates that really are YOU (sort of) because YOU are thinking every possible thought while making every possible decision, and physically doing every possible action, in each here-and-now; and these differing thoughts-and-actions (mega-schizophrenia!) lead to an immense number of divergent future histories that will be experienced by some form of “you” without any control by you, that all begin with your current here-and-now and continue diverging in your future here-and-nows.

B. Uncontrolled Evil and Suffering: The essence of MWI, with every possible quantum-result happening, seems to deny the possibility of divine control. But in Christian theologies (Arminian or Calvinistic) God is sovereign, and whatever happens is only what God allows and/or causes to happen. Without any divine control, MWI would allow the existence of history-branches with a wide variety of uncontrolled evils and sufferings, thereby violating Principle #3: "in an immense multiverse the ‘many things’ that happen would include only what God allows to happen."

For both A and B, there is a major difference between an MWI-multiverse and non-MWI multiverses:

With MWI there is not control, either by people or God.*

With other proposed multiverses, in each universe every person makes choices in their here-and-now reality; and according to conventional Judeo-Christian theology, God makes choices and has ultimate control.

The choices in A are denied by those who propose a determinism that eliminates human free will, and the choices in B are denied by atheists who declare that God does not exist, and by deists who think that God does not interact with His creation; but whatever choices do exixt, there would be no difference between these choices in a single-universe and a non-MWI multiverse. Whatever choices can be made by humans and by God in a single-universe, the same choices can be made in a non-MWI multiverse. But with an MWI-multiverse the possibility of any choice (by people in A, or by God in B) is declared to be impossible in the basic definition of MWI, as the essence of MWI.

* MWI does propose some control-by-nature because actions that are more probable, according to quantum physics, will occur in more mwi-branches of history. But there is no explicit control, by people or God. Of course, we can propose theistic interpretations of MWI, but these changes would modify its essential foundation, which is allowing quantum wave-functions to develop with total freedom.

What are my responses?

There are no scientific reasons to think an MWI-multiverse exists, and I don't think it exists.

But if MWI does occur so this produces an MWI-Multiverse,

I believe (re: Problem A) that God would somehow convert the basic-MWI into a modified-MWI by giving a special reality status to one branch of history — it's the one we have been experiencing, are experiencing here-and-now, and will continue to experience, in which our thoughts-and-actions will be accountable to God — to prevent one potential theological problem (A) from becoming an actual theological problem.

But (re: Problem B) if the other branches actually exist and are being experienced by people — even if they are not the “us” who are accountable to God) — there would be uncontrolled evil and suffering in some history-branches, thus causing Problem B. This could be solved if God exerted some control over the MWI-multiverse, but I can't understand how this could happen in a way that is consistent with the usual definition of MWI, which prposes that EVERYTHING (with no exceptions) really does happen.

Whatever is happening, at our level and God's level, for us an appropriately humble response is to faithfully follow Principle #2h by acknowledging that "if God ... understands [and wisely evaluates] the ‘many things’ happening [in our single-universe or in any kind of multiverse-universe], and approves, that should be sufficient for us, whether or not we understand or approve."

Now we'll return to Robert Mann's ideas about a non-MWI multiverse (which may or may not exist in reality, we both agree) and my responses.

Christs who Refuse to Die on the Cross (this would not be a problem)

RM: "Duplication presents a serious challenge to Christology. If there are many duplicate worlds, then presumably there are many duplicate Christs. Pursuing the line of reasoning that follows from allowing all initial conditions, in some parts of the multiverse Jesus dies on the cross and in others he does not. [this would happen with MWI but not necessarily with other kinds of multiverse] What then do we make of the concepts of atonement and salvation? Do they only apply to those ‘lucky’ parts of the multiverse where Jesus chose the path of sacrifice? Is Christ to be identified with God only in those sacrificial sectors? Does God so love only certain parts of this multiverse?" {148L5}

CR: If the tri-une God — Father, Son (Christ), Holy Spirit — is sovereign over a multiverse, instead of saying "presumably there are many duplicate Christs" it would be more correct to say “presumably there are many incarnations of Christ.”

CR: This concern — proposing that God might love some parts of the multiverse, but not others — would be a profound violation of Principle #3, regarding the sovereignty of the tri-une God (including Christ) who decides whether Christ will or will not die in each incarnation. Based on the Bible, we have no reason to think that an incarnated Christ would ever refuse to die on the cross by changing His attitude from His actual humble obedience — "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. (Matthew 26:39)" — to a sinful disobedience, “... not as you will, but as I will, and I'll decide to not drink this cup of death on the cross.” I'm sure that Robert agrees, and in this "challenge" he is describing a question that could be asked by others.* In fact, in a continuation of the quotation above, Robert states this principle of sinless obedience by incarnated Christs, but then (speaking for others) he rejects it:

RM: "These problems [of sinfully disobedient Christs] can be avoided (or at least ameliorated) if one imposes the theological constraint that all the duplicate Christs choose the path of sacrifice. This is fine, but it undermines the motivation behind this simple multiverse in the first place, which was to generate universes by random initial conditions. To impose such a constraint is to eliminate this randomness." {148L8}

CR: By saying "this is fine," Mann agrees that we should expect Christ to always "choose the path of sacrifice." But a Christian does not have to avoid this theological constraint, just to "generate universes by random initial conditions." In a multiverse, God would exert sovereign control over what happens during the history of that universe, after its initial conditions have been established. Christians should strongly affirm it because we believe that God will do what is needed to offer a way for people to be saved, whether this is Christ choosing sacrifice or in some other way.

CR: Even if multiverse-universes were generated with "random initial conditions," God would be sovereign over the history that develops in each universe.

* These others might legitimately claim that disobedient Christs would be one type of "uncontrolled evil" that would occur in some branches of an uncontrolled MWI-multiverse.

Multiverse Interpretation

Should we accept an atheistic interpretation of a multiverse? No.

RM: An interpretation of a multiverse based on conventional Christian theology, which acknowledges the sovereignty of God by affirming that Christ will always behave in the way that Christ (who is part of the tri-une God) decides to behave, "undermines the motivation behind this simple multiverse in the first place, which was to generate universes by random initial conditions. To impose such a constraint is to eliminate this randomness." {148L8}

CR: Above, I ask "why should a Christian avoid this theological constraint?" and explain why we should affirm the constraint. A theistic interpretation of a multiverse is analogous to a theistic interpretation of evolution in theistic evolution. Although atheists can claim that “natural = without God” for natural neo-Darwinian evolution, this is not the way “natural” should be viewed by Judeo-Christian theists. Instead, Jews and Christians should define natural process as being designed, created, sustained, and guided (occasionally or continually) by God. And we should call attention to atheistic interpretations when we see them. For example, in April 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) declared that biological evolution was "unsupervised,"thus adopting an atheistic interpretation of evolution. But in October 1997, non-NABT outsiders persuaded the leaders of NABT to acknowledge that their claim (about a lack of supervision) was not scientifically justifiable, so they dropped this claim. {read the story of NABT and its Biology-Theology} We also should not propose an atheistic interpretation of a multiverse, and we should not uncritically accept this proposal by others; instead we should challenge it by asking, “Can your interpretation be justified by scientific evidence-and-logic? If not, then you should explicitly state that your interpretation of the science is non-scientific.” / note: non-scientific does not mean un-scientific, it means outside science which is not necessarily against science. / also: Jews and Christians who believe what is taught in the Judaic Scriptures that we both accept (these scriptures are often called the Old Testament) are Judeo-Christian theists who should agree about the essentials of Judeo-Christian theology, although followers of Judaism and Christianity will disagree about some aspects of Christian theology; therefore, when I say "Christians" or "Christian theology" this usually is the same as “Judeo-Christian theists” or “Judeo-Christian theology” but sometimes it is different.

Our interpretations of natural process are important. In one part of my Creation-FAQ, in Sections 5A-5G I ask "What can a Christian believe about evolution?" and explain why, even though evolutionary creation (i.e. theistic evolution) is not my own view, I defend its theological acceptability. Here is one reason, quoted from Section 5E of my FAQ for Creation, Evolution, and Design:

A nontheistic interpretation of neo-Darwinian science will see the process of evolution as being not designed by God, using matter not created by God, driven by only chance and selection that were not guided by God. But these claims are theological, not scientific, and a theistic interpretation of the same science can disagree by viewing the evolutionary process as being designed by God, using matter created by God, and (at least sometimes) guided by God. {Divine Guiding of Natural Process} In most fields of science — ranging from the physics of rain to the biochemistry of embryology and physiology — there are no theological criticisms of scientists who accept naturalistic theories proposing “only natural process.” A proposal for theistic evolution [evolutionary creation] just extends this acceptance into another area of science.

And a proposal for a theistic multiverse just extends our theistic interpretations of nature into one more area of science.

When a theory is criticized because it can be interpreted atheistically, this is a good starting point for an evaluation. Then, to decide whether it's a good ending point for a conclusion that the theory must be interpreted in the way proposed by atheists, we should critically evaluate each proposed Christian interpretation (or more generally, Judeo-Christian interpretation) and ask whether it is acceptable, theologically and scientifically. If the answer is “yes, this interpretation is acceptable” and if there is no logically compelling reason to accept an atheistic interpretation, we should reject the atheistic interpretation, explaining why it is being rejected and why instead we are choosing to interpret the theory in the context of our Christian worldview. Christians should interpret a multiverse theory in ways that are acceptable to us; our views of a multiverse should not be determined by the proposals of atheists, by the interpretations they prefer.

Would a multiverse be “too much” for God to govern? ( no )

RM: "The classic picture has been that of a finite creation whose origin, existence, and fulfillment depend on the limitless power of God [who is "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent"]. ... The creation is subordinate to God and is limited." By contrast, "It is difficult to regard the multiverse as being anything other than a limitless creation. Adopting this viewpoint, the classic picture must be discarded, and a theological tension arises between the power of the Creator and the creation." {146R6-146R8}

CR: Again, notice the equating of potential immensity (in a vast creation) with potential infinity (in a "limitless" creation) by ignoring Principle #1. Also, despite the common assumption that a life-allowing universe will also be life-producing, we should remember the distinction between life-allowing and life-producing and we should believe that a sovereign God decides where and when life will occur. Concerns about multiverse-duplicates assume that life will begin by natural process, because either an origin of life isn't difficult, or any improbabilities will be overcome by immense probabilistic resources.

CR: There is no Bible-based theological reason to conclude that God can cope with a universe but not a multiverse, that a multiverse filled with life would be “too much” for a semi-omniscient God who has limited observational-and-computational abilities so He could not cope with the complexity. But even if this divine limitation does exist (and there is no biblical evidence to support this claim), if we believe that God is omnipotent, then we should believe that He could “limit His focus” by limiting life so it exists only on Earth, or only in this universe, or only in a limited number of universes, because God decides where life will (and will not) occur. Or maybe — and a humble “maybe” is all we can claim to know — God would decide to create a huge number of intelligent creatures throughout a multiverse, by using natural evolution and/or miracles.

Would a designed multiverse be a worthy way for God to create? ( yes )

RM: "In a situation where all possible outcomes are realized it is difficult to avoid a complete degeneration into absurdity. For example, the intelligibility of God reflected through a putatively elegant mathematical description of the multiverse [for a designed universe] is undermined [with a designed multiverse] by the imbecilic generation of all conceivable outcomes." {146R9-147L1}

CR: Again, many conceivable outcomes (which might be possible) would not be "all conceivable outcomes" (this is not possible), using Rational Principle #1 about the impossibility of physical infinities.

CR: Aesthetically and theologically, I also would prefer a designed single-universe. But, as explained in Principle 2h, "a humble theist should acknowledge that if God ... understands the ‘many things’ happening, and approves, that should be sufficient for us, whether or not we understand or approve." Therefore, we should express our personal preferences with appropriate humility, as I urge in the conclusion of my Creation-FAQ asking "What can a Christian believe about evolution?":

In science and theology, our humility should be appropriate, not too little and not too much. We can make some claims, but not others, with confidence. ..... Instead of criticizing either possibility [if God created “with or without miracles” or, in the context of cosmology, created a universe or multiverse] as being a less worthy way for God to create, it seems wise to be humble by deciding that, either way, God's plan for design-and-creation was wonderful and is worthy of our praise. You and I should say in public — and believe in our hearts and minds — that “IF God created using another method (differing from the way I think He created, regarding either age or evolution [or universe or multiverse]), then God is worthy of our praise.” But this humility (if... then...) is compatible with humbly explaining, using arguments from theology and science, why we think a particular view is most likely to be true.

I think Robert agrees with this, and he is simply explaining why he thinks "a particular view [with a designed-and-created universe that is not part of an immense multiverse] is most likely to be true."

Appropriate Humility in Creation Theology

Part of my motivation for writing this page is to avoid a creation theology that is too restrictive, that goes beyond what the Bible teaches. Here are two examples. In the 1600s, some Christians (including leaders of the Roman Catholic Church) insisted that God had created a motionless earth at the center of the universe, not an earth that is orbiting the sun and is rotating once every 24 hours. In 2010, some Christians (including leaders with influence) are continuing to claim — even after hearing many explanations of why their views are not scripturally warranted or scientifically supported — that “if the Bible is true, the earth is young” so “if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true.” These two claims, about a stationary earth and a young earth, are not biblically supported so they are too restrictive, and (according to current science) they are wrong. We should avoid unnecessary restrictions on creation theology, whether the proposed restrictions are based on specific biblical passages (as with a stationary earth or young earth) or (as in Robert Mann's opposition to a multiverse) are based on general biblical principles about the characteristics of God and His creation.

I think the Bible does not support a claim that our universe must be the only universe, that God would not create our universe as part of a multiverse so the only theologically acceptable type of creation is a single universe. The Bible seems to say nothing directly about this question, one way or the other, and current science (when this was written in April 2010) says “we don't know for certain, and maybe we cannot know.”

We should try to avoid restrictions on creation theology unless these restrictions are necessary, based on what the Bible clearly teaches. If a claim really does contradict our Bible-based theology — as in an unscientific assertion that “according to science, divine miracles are impossible” so God could not use any miracles during the history of creation or the history of human salvation — we should challenge this claim and explain why we think it is wrong. But we should avoid “drawing a line in the sand and taking a stand” where this is not necessary. If a creation view is compatible with what is clearly taught in the Bible, this makes the view a theologically acceptable possibility for creation.

But an appropriate creation humility is compatible with humbly explaining, using arguments from theology and science, why we think a particular view is most likely to be true. And this is the goal of Robert in his paper.

Would a MULTIVERSE be compatible with SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITY? ( yes )

RM: "All possible experimental outcomes occur for a given physical system somewhere in the multiverse. Two sets of near-identical observers could measure wildly different outcomes from the same set of conditions, with one set of observers inferring quite distinct forms of scientific regularity. In what sense can we then say science is left with any predictive power? ... Indeed, since everything that can occur does occur, one is ultimately left with a reasonless explanation for any given phenomenon." {147R9-148L3}

For this section it will be useful to review the concepts of universe-types and universe-actualizations and Rational Principle #2.

CR, quoting from my AP/MaoID: Will reliable science be impossible because scientists cannot reject a claim for any event even though it seems extremely improbable, if the event might occursomewhere else in an immense multiverse? For example, will we have to accept implausible claims for a “perpetual motion machine” that violates the probability-based Second Law of Thermodynamics? ..... No, because scientists in a multiverse would not be omnipresent super-observers; they would live in a single universe, and in every universe, whatever is most likely to happen is what is most likely to be observed. Although strange things might be happening somewhere in a multiverse, it's extremely unlikely that strange things will be happening where you are,at the particular here-and-now location in space-and-time where you are making your observations. Therefore, in any universe-type where nature is reliable (where natural process is consistent, as in our universe) science can be based on “the best ways to bet” and it will be reliable, because scientists will not observe frequent highly improbable events (on a “tail” of a probabilistic distribution) that would threaten confidence in their science. We have no reason to think that tail-of-the-distribution events — such as perpetual motion machines (defying the Second Law) or wingless flying cows (defying gravity and aerodynamics) or everyday improbabilities such as Aunt Bertha winning 20 consecutive state lotteries — would be more probable in other universe-types with science (if they exist) compared with our universe-type. And we can imagine some events (such as wingless cows flying around the world?) so improbable that they would NEVER occur in any universe, even in an extremely immense multiverse. Our own science can continue as usual, based on our own universe-specific observations, whether or not we live in a multiverse. What about science and miracles?

RM: "If we decide to restrict science only to our observable patch, then what is the point of introducing the multiverse in the first place? One is also left with the question of how one rules out unlikely outcomes on the basis of chance. Any phenomenon contradicting known science within a patch might just as well be attributed to being in a quirky location in the multiverse. {148L2}"

CR: All actualized-universes of the same universe-type (if different types and actualizations really exist) should develop the same basic scientific principles, although in actualized-universes the differences in initial conditions would lead to different details in their histories of nature, and differences in worldviews-and-culture would produce some variability in the formulations of these principles. But if more than one universe-type has intelligent beings and science, each distinct universe-type will have different scientific principles. {quoted from AP/MaoID}

As explained above, we can "restrict science only to our observable patch." It's not necessary for us to develop a generalized multiverse-science that could explain phenomena everywhere in a multiverse (*) because we can only observe what is happening in our universe, in "our observable patch" where the properties of nature are consistent. Therefore, I don't understand why Mann is protesting against this localized universe-science by asking "what is the point of introducing the multiverse in the first place?" But in addition to developing our localized universe-science, some areas of science (e.g. string theory and multiverse cosmology) could try to develop a “bigger picture” science whose goal is an overall perspective, in the context of multiverse cosmology, on what is happening both inside and outside our universe. But this is different than trying to imagine what science would be like for a universe with nature-properties that differ from our own nature-properties; while this might be possible, it is not necessary.

And phenomena that contradict science could not be attributed to a "quirky location" because, as explained above, we are not omnipresent super-observers so "our own science can continue as usual, based on our own universe-specific observations, whether or not we live in a multiverse."

* In the most popular models of a multiverse, the properties of nature are different in each universe-type (with perhaps 10500 type-variations?) so the science developed in one universe would not be correct in a universe of a different type, re: the results of science. And re: the process of science, developing a generalized multiverse-science would be very complicated and difficult, maybe impossible, because it would be purely theoretical with no empirical foundation using data from other universe-types. But for practical functionality a generalized multiverse-science (that describes the properties of nature in 10500 universe-types, plus their universe-actualizations that have differing initial conditions) would not be necessary; instead, a localized universe-science (including multiverse cosmology) would be sufficient, and it is a worthy goal.

A Change in Science: Although in the excerpts above this is not Mann's concern (re: changes in scientific rationality), one actual change in science is the fact that scientists are now thinking, talking, and writing about a multiverse. Current cosmology is much different now than it was in the 1960s before scientists began developing their sophisticated theories about big bang inflation, string theory, and multiple universes. But there is a difference between human theories and the physical realities that may or may not match our theories. For example, the physical reality of actual orbits did not change between 1500 (when most scientists thought “planets orbit the earth”) and 1700 (when most scientists thought “planets, including earth, orbit the sun”). In this case the new theory was correct, but in other cases a theory is incorrect, as in the 1800s when a theory about luminiferous ether proposed that space is filled with an ether which serves as a medium for the transmission of light waves, and their theory was wrong. Currently it seems that “the jury is still out” on the new cosmological theories, so appropriate humility is justified.

Multiverse Theory — Is it scientific?

Some scientists (and nonscientists) claim that a multiverse theory is not scientific. These claims, made by theists and non-theists, are motivated by wanting to uphold the integrity of science. For some people, but not others, another motive is a desire to defend claims for a designing of nature. Quoting from my AP/MaoID page:

Currently there is no direct observational evidence for a multiverse. But according to most multiverse theories, other universes are in a different space-time framework so in principle they cannot be observed, or they are very far away so in practice they are unobservable. Therefore, the fact that we do not observe any other universe does not count as scientific evidence against theories proposing the existence of many other universes.

Because empirical testing is the foundation of scientific method, but multiverse theories cannot be empirically tested using direct observational evidence, many scientists and philosophers (both theists & non-theists) claim that untestable multiverse theories are philosophical speculations rather than authentically scientific theories.

But could we find indirect observational evidence? The logical foundation of modern science is hypothetico-deductive logic, which permits a theory to propose unobservable entities if these help the theory explain observable outcomes. This is why modern scientific theories proposing the existence of unobservable electrons (in chemistry) and ideas (in psychology) are widely accepted, because these theories — which propose that unobservable causes (electrons and ideas) help to produce the effects we observe — are the most satisfactory explanations for our observations. {Science and Unobservables - The Demise of Positivism}

Why could the if-then logic of hypothetico-deductive reasoning make more people consider a multiverse theory to be more acceptable as being authentically “scientific” ? We'll look at the if-and-if-then reasoning for a specific type of multiverse theory: [IOU - I'll finish this paragraph soon, probably late-night February 6] IF some scientists think that probably String Theory (M-theory) is true and/or scientifically useful, and IF String Theory seems to offer a good explanation for the cosmological inflation we do observe, and IF in these situations many universes (to form a multiverse) would be produced, THEN a multiverse seems probable. [should this be if-if-if-then, or if-if-then?] / the paragraph is very rough from here onward (based on this application of String Theory to inflationary situation) combo of M-theory plus multiverse is useful in hypothetico-deductive logic, and if a combination of “M-theory plus inflation” makes a multiverse possible (or even probable) as a cause and/or effect, this would provide indirect observational evidence for a multiverse.

Science and Miracles

Some people think that science would be impossible if miracles can occur. Although in some ways miracle questions are similar to the multiverse questions examined above, they differ in a very important way. By contrast with a multiverse and its imaginary non-problems, miracles could potentially be an actual problem that would provide a practical reason for us to lose confidence in the reliability of science. In reality, however, this potential problem is not an actual problem for everyday science, because (quoting from my page explaining why claims for inherent conflict between science and religion are exaggerated) "although science would be impossible if we lived in a world with constant ‘Alice in Wonderland’ surprises and no reliable cause-effect relationships, if despite occasional miracles the universe usually operates according to normal natural patterns, science will be possible and useful."

Should scientists distinguish between Imaginative Speculation and Physical Reality? ( yes, we agree )

RM: "The question [for science, philosophy, and theology] is whether all that exists is equivalent to all that is possible. ... A given multiverse theory posits some kind of universe-generating mechanism, and then argues the case for the special features of our universe [being produced naturally without design due to “beating the odds” with a huge number of universes] by contending that the mechanism does generate whatever it can generate... [so] whatever can exist, does exist. ... Is it credible to believe that God created everything [that we can imaginatively propose]? Does God create (by whatever means) whatever can be created, or does the Creator make particular choices? ... What line should be drawn between the possible and the existent? ... These questions cannot be decided by observation and experiment, in that the multiverse paradigm — by definition — asserts that all that exists extends well beyond the capacity of observation. ... It is also far from clear that these questions can be settled by mathematical self-consistency arguments, though there is much effort being expended in this direction. ... Are there theological criteria for drawing a line, even tentatively, between the possible and the existent? If so, what are they? If not, can theology have anything useful to say about the multiverse?" {145R8-146R4}

CR: Agreeing with Robert, I also think we should be asking these questions.

A Summary:

Would a multiverse be scientifically uncontrollable and theologically lethal? ( no )

RM: "The multiverse approach is a conceptual Pandora’s box: once you get started on the idea, it is not clear how or where to stop. Scientifically it can run out of control, and it can be theologically lethal." {145R7}

CR: A multiverse will not seem to be scientifically uncontrollable or theologically lethal if we remember four rational principles: 1 (many things are not everything, because immensity is not infinity); 2 (we are not omnipresent super-observers, we see only what is here-and-now); 2h (if it's OK with God, it's ok with me); 3 (just relax, God is in control). Yes, the concept of a multiverse is difficult to understand or even imagine, especially for people who don't have a scientific background, but we should not exaggerate the weirdness by accepting atheistic multiverse-interpretations that deny the existence and power of God. As explained above (Humility in Creation Theology), we should "avoid a creation theology that is too restrictive, that goes beyond what the Bible teaches."

RM: Listing miscellaneous potential problems with a multiverse, "further examples [in addition to the duplication dilemma] include problems with scientific elegance, empirical testability, spontaneous creation, unbounded evil, purpose, and free will." {148R9}

CR: I don't think these are actual theological problems, for reasons explained earlier. Here are brief comments about where these issues are addressed: scientific elegance and empirical testability (is a multiverse theory scientific? I think Robert will agree that good pro-and-con arguments can be made; to see some of these, and my conclusion that we should be patient and learn what we can rather than prematurely labeling multiverse proposals as non-science so we can ignore them, search for “elegance” and “testing” in my page about The Anthropic Principle: Multiverse and/or Design); unbounded evil, purpose, and free will (these are no more problematic in a multiverse than in a universe; see Principles 3, 2h, and 2, respectively, and their applications for the duplication dilemma & worries that we are not unique); spontaneous creation (I'm not sure what this means, but I think it's about many universes being created “automatically” due to the cosmological physics, which does make me a little uneasy because I prefer the idea of God creating each world individually for a purpose, but if God created our world by using a multiverse that's fine with me, as in the humility of Principle 2h; I don't think Robert is asking about creating massive amounts of mass-energy in many gigantic universes because he is an expert physicist and evidently he and his fellow physicists are satisfied that this is possible, or about creating life - which is discussed in Principle 3 above and Part 2 below).

RM: Mann wonders whether "the multiverse paradigm is scientifically beneficial... [or] can be reconciled with any reasonable form of Christian theology. A far more critical analysis from scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives needs to be applied in examining the multiverse paradigm." {149L2}

CR: I agree. These questions — about fine tuning and intelligent design, universe and multiverse, regarding science, philosophy, and theology — are important, so they should be carefully examined and thoughtfully discussed. I hope this page makes a useful contribution to our collective logical evaluations.

TO their shame and none belief I point to these answers see how many of them changed per your recollection each change means you are not from this universe. Hyperlink http://mandelaeffect.com/major-memories/ if you are interested.

51 or 52 United States — (Not Puerto Rico, which is a territory, or DC, which is a district.)

Berenstain Bears or Berenstein Bears – Which do you recall? (Still one of the most popular topics at this website.)

Billy Graham’s funeral on TV. As of January 2016, he’s still alive.

Challenger shuttle explosion date? 1984, 1985, or 1986? Winter or another time of year? (PerWikipedia, it was 28 Jan 1986.) Also, alternate memories about the Columbia.

Colors – Chartreuse and more – Many people recall chartreuse as a pink or reddish color. It’s actually yellow-green.

Curious George – Tail or no tail? (He’s never had a tail.) This is part of my article about dual memories.

Ghost Hunters TV show — Some remember the earliest show name as TAPS, not Ghost Hunters.(Yes, we know the real-life team is called TAPS, and some of their gear has always said that.)

Henry VIII portrait with a turkey leg in his hand — Many people clearly recall seeing it in history books, but there’s no record of it, now.

Jif or Jiffy Peanut Butter – Jif peanut butter was never called “Jiffy,” in this timestream. (Not confused with Skippy brand, either.)

Lindbergh baby – Never found? In this timestream, the 20-month old baby was found 12 May 1932.

Mother Teresa – A saint before 2016? Several recall her canonization in the 1990s. They also recall her name spelled “Theresa.”

Nelson Mandela’s death in prison, long before his actual death (in this timestream) on 5 December 2013.

New Zealand’s location, relative to Australia.

Red/blue – Pepsi logo changes, Chevron logo changes, and other color swaps… are they markers, cues, or signs to watch for?

September 22nd or 23rd? – Some people recall events shifting from one of these dates to another. (The reaction to this article — on- and off-site — has been disproportionate to its apparent minor importance.)

Sky – Changes in the sun, moon, stars, planets and their moons, constellation configurations and placement, and the color of the sky in general.

Tiananmen Square – Memories of a young man being run over by a tank. (Might be Mandela Effect issue or simple media manipulation.)

ADDITIONAL REPORTED MEMORIES

Bold links will take you to articles on this website. All other links will take you off-site.

More celebrities

Agatha Christie – Never found after her 1926 disappearance? (In this timestream, she turned up 10 days later, but never explained. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie#Disappearance ) [Comments link 1 – link 2 – link 3.]

Barbara or Barbra Streisand? In this reality, it’s Barbra. (“Barbara” is a common typo, but doesn’t explain all the alternate memories. Many people listed the alternative “Barbara” as one of several memories they have. Individual comment links include this, this, this, and this.)

Betty White – Alive, well, and still feisty at age 93 in March 2015. Some recall her passing.

Brian Dennehy – Alive and well, per Wikipedia, but a few of us have other memories.

Charles Schulz or Schultz? (Creator of Peanuts comics and TV shows including Charlie Brown, Lucy, Snoopy, etc.) The correct spelling in this timestream is Schulz. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Schulz )

Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer – Several people have (privately) reported a memory of his recent death. Wikipedia says still alive.

Coen brothers or Cohen brothers? – American film producers & screenwriters. Note: Different from producers John Cohen (“Ice Age,” “Despicable Me,” etc.), Rob Cohen (“The Mummy,” “The Fast and the Furious,” etc.), and Charles S. Cohen (“Frozen River.”) Not the musicians, either.Comment link.

David Soul – As of October 2015, he’s still alive, healthy, and starring in new productions.

Dick Clark’s death… at least two of them. (Per Wikipedia, he died in April 2012.)

Dick Van Patten – Died prior to his June 2015 death in this timestream?

Dom DeLuise’s death. He died in 2009, but that’s not the only memory people have. 10 related comments, some at Comments 2.

Don Rickles – Still alive in Oct 2015 (per Wikipedia) although some recall his earlier demise.

Ernest Borgnine, death reported years before it happened in 2012.

Forrest J. Ackerman – Died in 2008 in this timeline (per Wikipedia), but others recall alternate, earlier death dates.

Fred Rogers (aka Mister Rogers) – Died in 2003, or later?

Freddie Prinze — Several memories, mostly related to Freddie, Junior, and Sarah Michelle Gellar, and a child born around 2003 or 2004.

Hal Holbrook – Born 1925, and still alive in January 2015. His late wife, Dixie Carter, passed away in 2010. Several remember Mr. Holbrook’s own death & memorials prior to 2010.

Helen Thomas (1920 – 2013), former White House reporter – Some recall an alternate date when she passed.

Henry Ford – Died from cerebral hemorrhage or something else?

Houston family (Whitney’s) – Conflicting memories about her children, after Whitney’s death, but before Bobbi Kristina’s 2015 tragic death.

Jack Palance — An earlier death date than what’s in the current timestream.

Jayne Meadows Allen — Died 2015 or much earlier? (She was an actress, and widow of comedian Steve Allen.)

Jerry Lewis – Remembered death late in 2013 or early 2014. Still alive in Oct 2014. (Different from Jerry Lee Lewis, the colorful singer/songwriter.)

Jim Henson – Died of complications from a strep infection, or from cancer? (In this timestream, initially reported as walking pneumonia. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Henson#Illness_and_death )

Jimmy Swaggart — Report dead, but still alive as of July 2012.

John Denver’s death — When and where? In this reality, 12 Oct 1997 near Monterrey Bay, California.

John Lennon — Date of death is 8 Dec 1980, but some have clear memories of a different date.

John Lennon & Yoko Ono – The location of 1969 “bed-in for peace.” (If you remember this, note the location before checking Wikipedia for the details.)

Jon Bon Jovi – Some recall a startling, mid-1990s lifestyle announcement.

Kathie Lee Gifford or Kathy Lee Gifford? In this reality, it’s always been “Kathie.”

Katy Perry – Memories of her using the name Kate, not Katy.

Leonard DiCaprio – Won an Oscar before 2016? Some recall earlier nominations and awards, as well as his 2016 acceptance speech, but years earlier.

Li Qi – Chinese comedian with a reported death, still alive in early 2014.

Louie Anderson – Alive and well now, but his death (and therefore cancellation of his TV show) at some point in the past. (Not confused with John Candy and other comedians.)

Muhammad Ali – 2009 death? Still alive (early 2015) per Wikipedia.

Neil Armstrong died in 2013, not 2012? Also, some are sure he made a ‘Mr. Gorsky’ reference during his lunar voyage. (Latter debunked in this timestream by Snopes, but does anyone actually recall hearing it?)

Patrick Swayze, his full recovery reported after his tragic death in this reality.

Peter Fonda – He’s still alive. (Not confusing him with his dad, actor Henry Fonda, who died in 1982.)

Peter Townsend or Peter Townshend — Spelling change? (One is a singer-songwriter for The Who. The other is an American drummer.)

Reba McIntyre or Reba McEntire? – Decide how you remember it before visiting her official website or Wikipedia to see the real spelling.

Richard Chamberlain – Did not die in the 1990s. Still alive (as of Oct 2015), and – related memory – James Franciscus was not his brother.

Robert Crumb — Death reported, 1990s. Still alive (July 2015). Artist responsible for Fritz the Catand the iconic Keep on Truckin’ graphic, etc.

Robert Stack — Earlier death reports.

Rod Serling or Rod Sterling? Some recall the latter spelling, not as a typo.

Rodney King – Some have alternate memories of his death, including one during the infamous incident in 1991.

Shirley Temple — Some recall her death long prior to 10 Feb 2014.

Sinbad – Did he ever play a genie in a major movie? Did he ever play a genie, full stop?

Terry Pratchett – According to some, he died shortly after the announcement of his illness (2013), instead of March 2015.

Will Smith and Jada Pinkett – Divorced ~10 years ago? (2015: Still listed as a happy couple. He divorced a previous wife in 1995.)

William Daniels (actor) – Did not die in the early 2000s. Still alive (<- Wikipedia link) in early 2015.

Yogi Berra (athlete) – Died 22 Sep 2015, but some recall an earlier death.

More events… when and where?

9/11 – Did it happen on 9/11, as most people remember, or on 9/10, as some recall?

Thanksgiving (USA) – The third or the fourth Thursday in November? (Since 1941, it’s always on the fourth Thursday.)

Weather – Hurricane Katrina: April or August 2005, or another year altogether?

Writers’ strike in Hollywood – 2007-2008 or some other year (21st century only)?

More geography

Geography — Locations and sizes of New Zealand. Locations of Australia, Honduras, Japan, Manchuria, and more.

Adam’s Bridge (also Ram Setu, Rama Setu, Setubandhanam, and other names) – Some recall it fully above sea level in the mid-late 20th century, while historical records (in this timestream) say it was partially submerged — due to a cyclone — in the late 15th century. (ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge )

Alaska – Coastline radically different.

Arctica – Hasn’t existed for a very long time.

Japan – Where do you recall it, in relation to China?

Korea – N. Korea borders Russia? That’s what maps show.

Madagascar – Location and general geography. Not just a map issue.

Mongolia – Part of China or a separate country? And where is/was it?

Sri Lanka location, due south of India, not southeast. (Also see ancient maps at this article about geography changes, in general.)

Wales – East or west of England and Scotland? (It’s west. From London, take the M25 west to the M4, and follow the M4 into Wales.)

More media (TV, films, books, magazines)

Big (the movie) – Alternate ending. (Not confused with 13 Going on 30.)

The Candidate, or The Campaign — One movie, one and a remake, two movies, or now three… and did the title change? (Solved, maybe: See the related HuffPost page. Compare the article title and the inset video clip title.)

Carmen Sandiego (“Where in the World Is…”) – Some recall a yellow trench coat, long before the red one. Comment link.

Cinderella – Some recall an alternate central character or characters.

Cruella DeVille or De Vil? – It’s the latter, in this Disney’s 101 Dalmatians movie reference. [See comment.]

Different Strokes or Diff’rent Strokes? – It’s the latter, though many recall otherwise and some TV listings support that.

Duggars – Was the show (briefly) “21 Kids and Counting”?

Forrest Gump – Was the most famous line “Life IS like a box of chocolates…” or “Life WAS like a box of chocolates…”? In this reality, it’s the latter. (However, both lines were used in connection with the movie, so this isn’t necessarily a Mandela Effect.)

Fred Rogers’ song, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” – Some recall “It’s a beautiful day in theneighborhood.” In this reality, it’s “It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood.”? (Seehttp://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/music/songs/wont_you_be_my_neighbor.html andhttps://youtu.be/zMUGJZrR9Jg.)

Gremlins character (movie) – Spike or Stripe? The only reliable sources say it was always Stripe, not Spike.

Hand gestures in movies – Do you recall different hand gestures in movies? For example, a more elaborate hand gesture by Antonio Banderas, with a candle, in Interview with the Vampire? Seethe YouTube clip from the movie, around the 2:03 point. I’m looking for very specific descriptions of the alternate gesture.

Independence Day (movie) — Characters now missing from a major scene? (This has been reported privately, twice, and we’re looking for confirmation from others.)

Interview with a Vampire, or Interview with the Vampire – Actually, both titles were used on published book, in this reality. So, this isn’t a clear Mandela Effect issue.

It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, and related topics – Did the Great Pumpkin appear near the end of the holiday special, or was it just Snoopy’s shadow? Was the cartoonist Charles Schultz or Charles Schulz? (In both cases, it was the latter in this reality.)

Jurassic Park – Original movie: Some recall a now-missing scene.

Justice League – Check the characters you’re remembering and see if one is missing.

K-PAX (movie) – Starred Kevin Spacey or Nicholas Cage? (In this timestream, it’s Spacey.)

Looney Tunes or Looney Toons? – Several conflicting memories.

Married with Children – Some recall one character played by two different actors.

M.A.S.H. (TV series) – Some recall the in-series death of Walter “Radar” O’Reilly. However, that wasn’t part of the story in this timestream.

Mirror, Mirror – In “Snow White,” did the evil queen say “Mirror, mirror…” or “Magic mirror…”? (In Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Queen says, “Magic mirror.”)

Mystery Science Theater — Variations of the numbers following show name (mostly 2000 or 3000, but a few recall 4000).

Sex and the City – Some are sure it was “Sex in the City” when it first aired.

Star Trek memories, including: Chakotay character killed, then returns — several episodes later — without much explanation. (I’ve talked about this — in person — with Robert Beltran, who played the character. He’s sure that version was never written or filmed.)

Star Wars – Was the iconic line “Luke, I am your father” or “No, I am your father”? Also a missing scene. (Not just “deleted.”)

Terminator (and other movie) variations, “remembered” before the deleted scenes were available on DVD. Alternate late scenes and endings reported, as well.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (movie) – Different ending after initial release? Different title?

X-Men – Some reports of alternate abilities for Professor X.

Movies remembered before they were released

The following movies have been “remembered” by people, months or years before each movie was actually released. When each person saw the film he or she reported, it was like deja vu. (Year noted is when the film was released in this reality.)

Flushed Away (2006)

More news reports

Twins… that aren’t – Reports of people who look exactly like someone’s twin (not just “somewhat like”) but aren’t actually twins. Different from doppelgangers, and more like the same physical design appearing again. Two alternates temporarily in the same reality…? (See this comment and thread for more.)

Whitey Bulger — Alleged Boston (MA, USA) gangster, did not die in 2013, in this reality. He’s still alive (as of August 2014).

More politics and political leaders

Abraham Lincoln – Alternate death. Alternate death date of son, Tad, as well.

Fidel Castro – Still alive (per Wikipedia in early 2016), but some recall a 2011 death.

Martin Luther King, Jr. — Shot with a handgun, at close range, or another cause of death?

Muammar Gaddafi — Some death memories from years before he was killed (in this timestream), and a couple of memories of him fleeing his country.

Mussolini – Looks different in recent historical photos. Not just different photos from what are in older news articles and textbooks, but a different man.

Osama bin Laden – Death reported in 2001 in the Middle East and elsewhere, with obituaries.

Ronald Reagan — Varying memories about when he was president, and when and how he died.

More pop culture

Brian Williams’ memories – A high-profile example of Mandela Effect, a blunder, or something else?

Gaming – Alternate Versions…? Several reports related to different games, online and off.

Life cereal commercial (1970s) – Did Mikey like everything, eat everything (or “eats anything”), orhate everything? (In this reality, it was “he hates everything.”) See Comment thread.

Music – lyrics, tracks, videos, and more – All music-related topics are discussed at this article.

Sara Lee products slogan/jingle – Some recall “Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee,” (1960s’ commercial: https://youtu.be/Iirw147LHkQ ) but others recall it as “Nobody does it like Sara Lee.” And, they’re clear that they didn’t just mis-hear it.

Volvo car symbol (the badge/icon/logo on the car)… Some recall a major change.

Spelling (names)

Berenstein – Berenstain (Bears books, etc.)

Dettol – Dettox (cleaning products)

Febreeze – Febreze

Fruit Loops – Froot Loops (breakfast cereal)

Jiffy – Jif (peanut butter)

Kathy Lee Gifford – Kathie Lee Gifford (entertainer)

Kate Perry – Katy Perry (entertainer)

Liason – Liaison

Looney Tunes or Looney Toons

MacDonald’s – McDonald’s (restaurant)

Oscar Meyer or Oscar Mayer? – Processed meat products’ brand name. (See comments.)

Pete Townsend – Pete Townshend (drummer for The Who)

Reba McIntyre – Reba McEntire (entertainer)

Sketchers – Skechers (footwear brand name – It’s Skechers in this reality.)

Western Sizzler – Western Sizzlin – Name in this timestream is Western Sizzlin (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sizzlin%27 ). Even FB pages lists Western Sizzler (ref: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Western-Sizzler-Auburn-Alabama/183908811678962 ).

(In every case, the latter spelling is correct in this reality.)

More spelling (dictionary)

Definitely or definately? Apparently, it’s the most misspelled word in the English language, but where did “definately” come from and why do people remember being taught that spelling in school…?

Dilemma or dilemna? A lot of people seem to recall the latter (the version with an N), but — in this timestream — it looks like that was never the correct spelling.