Contemplating the Mandela Effect

The Tree of Woe focuses his formidable intellect on the subject of false memories and divergent universes:

According to internet conspiracy theorists, however, the Mandela Effect is not just a real phenomenon — it’s a weapon. These theorists claim that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is used to manipulate our reality, causing changes in our universe each time it runs. This claim is widely popular on 4Chang’s /x/ and /pol/ boards, but it has also shown up on a number of other sites.

What these conspiracy mavens have failed to offer, however, is a mechanism by which the Large Hadron Collider could possibly change reality. On its face, it sounds absurd. How could a big particle collider change the universe?

CERN releases 300TB of Large Hadron Collider data to the public – KLGadgetGuy
Contemplations on the Tree of Woe is a reader-supported publication. It costs almost as much as the Large Hadron Collider just to pay for the instant coffee I drink while writing it. To help ensure a steady supply of caffeine to your contemplator, sign up to be a subscriber.

Let’s Get Colliding Largely
Theorists have nowadays accepted the possibility that energy emissions from Large Hadron Collider at CERN could generate quantum micro-black holes (see Alberghi, Casadio, and Tronconi 2007).

It is possible that these micro-black holes would emit tachyons (see Srivastava 1983).

As tachyons are faster-than-light particles, their worldlines are spacelike rather than timelike. If one assumes that tachyons have an invariant direction of travel, it follows that in certain frames of reference, tachyons travel backwards in time (see Arntzenius 1990).

Therefore, during its operational run in December 2012, LHC might have generated unobserved micro-black holes from which tachyons escaped and traveled backward into the past.

As these tachyons decayed, they could release energy which could interact with other particles in past. Such interactions, though microscopic, could cause “butterfly effects” (see Lorenz 1963) that materialized as retrocausal macroscopic changes in those worldlines associated with the interactions.

Voila. Each time the LHC runs, it changes the worldline. Reality shifts.

Well, Why Hasn’t the Universe Gotten Destroyed?
The possibility that the LHC might change reality every time it runs raises the question of why it hasn’t changed reality destructively. Why hasn’t the universe been blown up?

The answer to this is, of course, “Look around! Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to current events, but we’re getting our asses kicked, pal.”

I jest. The real answer is that changes to the worldline are limited by the Echverria, Klinkhammer, and Thorne (EKT) Effect. The EKT Effect proves that retrocausation cannot lead to paradoxes. Any self-contradictory event sequence will be replaced in reality by a closely related but noncontradictory sequence (see Dobyns 2011).

Therefore, the LHC cannot bring about changes which would result in the LHC not being built. Since the LHC is an incredibly large, expensive, and difficult-to-maintain piece of scientific hardware, worldlines in which WWIII destroyed Europe, or an EMP flare destroyed all electronics on Earth, and so on, are impossible. Subject to that constraint, worldlines could shift in a number of ways.

But Why Do We Remember the Changes?
Demonstrating that there is a theoretical mechanism by which the LHC might change reality does not yet explain the Mandela Effect. After all, the point of the Mandela Effect isn’t that the universe used to be different; it’s that we remember the universe being different.

If the Mandela Effect is real, I very much doubt it is the Large Hadron Collider or scientists that are responsible. I would assume a more supernatural force and a more sinister purpose are behind it, as an escalation of the way in which Christians are already being deceived, misled, and gaslight by perfectly natural means.

Jesus was not a refugee. Racism is not the unforgivable sin. Our ethics and traditions are not Judeochristian. If all of these false beliefs can be instilled by conventional means, how much more dangerous are those that could be installed by unconventional, seemingly-impossible methods?

And while I am skeptical myself, I remind you, one of the first objectives of the con man is to convince the mark that he cannot be deceived.