Speaker 1: Have you ever had that unshakable feeling, you know, that deep,
really unsettling cognitive twitch that the reality you woke up
in today isn't quite the world you remember going to
sleep in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like something's just a little bit off exactly.
Speaker 1: And it's way more than just forgetting a detail. It's
the realization that millions of people remember the exact same thing,
down to the color, the typeface, and yet official history,
all the objective records, they insist you're all simultaneously and
definitively wrong.
Speaker 2: Well, welcome to thrilling threads. This is where we pull
on those stray notions of reality, those loose ends of
physics and memory, and we see what happens when the
entire fabric of existence seems to well to fray.
Speaker 1: Right, And we're not just summarizing concepts today, We're here
to really unpack a collection of truly wild, deeply sourced
accounts about the fundamental code of our universe.
Speaker 2: Our mission today is pretty ambitious and honestly a little terrifying.
Speaker 1: It is we are diving into a fascinating collection of
accounts and theories concerning the true nature of reality, parallel universes,
and that strange, powerful phenomenon we call the Mandela.
Speaker 2: Effect, and our sources bring together some pretty incredible evidence.
We're talking about the radical ideas of a brilliant young man,
the frontiers of mind bend in quantum physics experiments, and
even philosophers who suggested decades ago that our collective past
could be systematically rewritten.
Speaker 1: And here is the central mystery that really anchors this
whole thing for me. A young genius named Max lenn
proposed this stunning theory right.
Speaker 2: Get this, He said that the most powerful scientific tool
humanity ever built, the large Hadron collider at Cerne, fundamentally
shifted our reality by altering a basic constant.
Speaker 1: Effectively destroying our original universe in the process exactly.
Speaker 2: And then shortly after voicing this theory to the world,
he basically vanished for years.
Speaker 1: So this isn't just theory. It's an accusation. It's an
accusation that science literally broke the world. Okay, let's unpack
this cosmic crisis. We need to follow this thread right
from the moment of creation or maybe the moment of destruction.
Speaker 2: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: To really understand this alleged shift, we have to start
with the machine at the center of the controversy, the
Large Hadron Collider, the LHC at Cerne, straddling the French
and Swiss border.
Speaker 2: And our sources really remind us that this wasn't just
some big science project. This was the largest, most expensive,
most powerful experimental device ever built by humanity.
Speaker 1: Designed to reach for the very luprint of existence.
Speaker 2: The two thousand and eight launch of the LHC was,
I mean, it was a monumental engineering achievement. It's a
seventeen mile ring designed to propel sub atomic particles protons
until they reached nearly the speed.
Speaker 1: Of light, and then smash them together.
Speaker 2: Right, smash them together with unparalleled energy, And the singular
goal was to recreate the conditions of the universe. Just
moments after the Big Bank, they were looking for the.
Speaker 1: Higgs boson, right, the so called god particle.
Speaker 2: That was the main prize. Finding It would validate the
standard model of particle physics and explain, you know, why
matter has mass in the first place.
Speaker 1: But accompanying all that incredible scientific thrill was a genuine,
almost visceral anxiety. And this went way beyond sensationalist headlines.
This was real scientific debate.
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely, some physicists, and we're talking about respected scientists here,
they genuinely warned that pushing the boundaries of energy density
this far could have catastrophic, unintended.
Speaker 1: Consequences like what specifically.
Speaker 2: While the sources highlight specific documented warnings, there were fears
that the immense energy concentrations could spawn microscopic black hole.
Speaker 1: Right, I remember that, the fear that we'd create a
black hole that would just swallow.
Speaker 2: The Earth exactly now. Mathematically, these tiny holes should evaporate
almost instantly through something called Hawking radiation. But the fear
was what if they don't, What if they grow even
slowly and eventually consume the planet?
Speaker 1: A pretty terrifying thought.
Speaker 2: And the other more was precisely what Max Loewan later
claimed that the massive energy expenditure and the manipulation of
fundamental constants could potentially distort space time.
Speaker 1: Itself, opening riffs or disrupting the quantum vacuum.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. And this is exactly where Max Loewen's theory
enters the narrative. He didn't just suggest the LHC created
some run of the mill danger. He proposed a surgical,
precise catastrophe something.
Speaker 1: That fundamentally altered the most basic building blog of matter,
which honestly is far more unnerving than a cosmic vacuum cleaner.
Speaker 2: It is. Max's claim was specific, almost terrifyingly technical. He
didn't argue that cern opened a rift to another dimension
in the way you see in movies. He said that
the particle accelerator altered the weight the mass of a
single electron.
Speaker 1: Wait, just one electron? How is that even the scale
of that is mind boggling. The most powerful machine in
the world focused on the most infinitesimal unit of matter, right, and.
Speaker 2: He claimed that this tiny, fundamental alteration subsequently destroyed our
universe and shifted us instantly into a parallel universe that was,
in his words, directly next to it.
Speaker 1: So Max is claiming that by changing the mass of
an electron, it fundamentally violated the physics holding our original
universe together, forcing a spontaneous shift into an adjacent one.
That's the idea, But that sounds like, well, it sounds
like a profound oversimplification of quantum effects. Did the sources
offer any physics to back up why altering one electron's
weight would destabilize an entire universe.
Speaker 2: That's a crucial point, and the sources do acknowledge it's
Max's big leap. His reasoning, however, centered on the concept
of imbalance. He said this action made this universe sort
of out of balance, imbalance. In his model, the constants
of nature are just incredibly finely tuned. It's the mass
of the electron which dictates chemical bonds and the stability
of atoms. If that were altered even minutely, the resulting
physical laws of our original reality would just cease to
function consistently.
Speaker 1: So our consciousness is forced to jump.
Speaker 2: It jumps to the nearest viable reality where those laws
still holds. The electron is the lynch pin. If you
change it, the whole structure.
Speaker 1: Collapses, and the timeline correlation here is what gives the
theory its powerful narrative hook.
Speaker 2: It's the cornerstone of his argument. The LHC began its
initial operations in testing around two thousand and eight, precisely
the LHC launch in two thousand and eight, and what
happens barely a year later, Starting around two thousand and.
Speaker 1: Nine, people started noticing things.
Speaker 2: People started noticing something profoundly strange. Memories that simply did
not match reality often shared by thousands, sometimes millions of
people all over the world. This structural coincidence, the major
physics experiment happening right before the widespread cognitive dissonance. That's
his smoking.
Speaker 1: Gun, and what we were all noticing, of course, was
the Mandela effect. Max specifically connected the phenomenon to this
post sern reality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he believed the consistent fluctuation in our reality. So objects, events,
phrases that are demonstrably fixed in our current reality but
are remembered differently by vast numbers of people is exactly
what we now recognize as the Mandela effects.
Speaker 1: So it's a residue, the evidence of the shift.
Speaker 2: It's the residue of that destructive shift, the evidence of
the one percent difference that wasn't cleanly poured it over
during the universal transition.
Speaker 1: And the prime example, the one that gives the effect
of its name, it remains the most powerful one precisely
because it deals with such a high stakes historical.
Speaker 2: Figure, Nelson Mandela.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thousands of people who were politically aware in the
eighties and nineties, they distinctly remembered Nilson Mandela dying in prison,
complete with televised funeral coverage and historical news reports.
Speaker 2: But as history now shows, he was released, he became
President of South Africa, and he actually died in twenty thirteen.
The scale of this shared false memory is just it's astonishing,
it really is.
Speaker 1: But as the sources detail this alteration, it seemed far
beyond historical figures. It corrupted cultural artifacts we assumed were fixed,
showing just how perversive the shift was.
Speaker 2: And those cultural shifts are frankly more chilling.
Speaker 1: They are because they deal with objects we've interacted with
countless times. It's the small, intimate details that feel impossible
to misremember. I mean, I vividly recall having an argument
in the nineties about the spelling of those famous children's books.
Speaker 2: The Berenstein Bears. Yes, that's a huge one. Max's theory
suggests that in the original timeline it was often remembered
as Berenstein Bears, spelled with an E, but in our
current reality it is and has always been spelled with.
Speaker 1: An A, which feels completely wrong to me even now.
Speaker 2: And the sources give us another perfect iconic example of
this cultural alteration that hits close to home for anyone
who watched Disney Classics.
Speaker 1: The snow white quote in the original or the pre
shift universe, as Max would call it, the easel Queen
demanded mirror, mirror on the wall.
Speaker 2: That is precisely how it lives in our collective memory.
I can hear it in my head right now, me too.
But the sources confirm that in our current transferred universe
the line is an always has been magic mirror on
the wall.
Speaker 1: It's not even close. It changes the rhythm, the tone, everything.
Speaker 2: It's a subtle change of a single word, but it
feels monumental.
Speaker 1: And what about the geographical shifts. That's another fascinating category.
So many people swear that New Zealand is located significantly
further north or east than it is currently shown on maps.
Speaker 2: Right, And for those of us who grew up in
the eighties, there's the iconic image of the monopoly man,
the little Banker.
Speaker 1: Mascot, of course, with the monocle.
Speaker 2: Exactly I remember the monocle. But if you check current
official versions of the logo, he never had one. That
can't be right, he never had one. It's those small,
subtle yet profound differences that Max theorized were the evidence.
He stressed that the shift was only a one percent difference,
but he emphasized that one percent difference is large on
our scale.
Speaker 1: Meaning this is absolutely a different universe, even if it
looks ninety nine percent the same. That's it.
Speaker 2: It's the difference between being a slightly off copy and
a completely separate manuscript where the footnotes and the margins
are radically changed.
Speaker 1: When I first encountered the barnstain barns slang difference, that
feeling of cognitive whiplast was extreme. It really felt like
the ground beneath me was destabilized, that feeling of weight.
If the spelling of a major childhood memory is wrong,
what else is foundational but false?
Speaker 2: And that cognitive dissonance is the engine of Max Loan's
entire theory. The human mind seeks stability and consistency. Right
memory is our anchor. When the external world, which should
be objective and fixed, proves to be plastic and inconsistent
with millions of others memories, the only logical conclusion is
either massive systemic human failure or that the environment itself
has changed.
Speaker 1: And Vaxel's want offer a terrifying yet strangely coherent scientific
explanation for the latter, using the LHC as the catastrophic mechanism.
Speaker 2: Max's theory about CERN causing a shift it wasn't a sudden,
isolated thought. It was actually built upon this elaborate model
of the multiverse he had. For him, reality is anything
but fixed, single, or linear.
Speaker 1: He saw the universe's generative. He believed universes and infinite
parallel universes are constantly being created, and he argued, this
continuous process defines the fundamental flow of reality and time
as we know it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it moves way beyond simple parallel timelines and posits
this active, bubbling source of existence.
Speaker 1: And this leads us to the mechanism behind this constant creation, which,
as you said, is just the most mind blowing aspect
of his thought, the constant catapult.
Speaker 2: The constant catapult. Max suggested that as every single electron spins,
we are infinitely catapulted into an infinite number of parallel universes.
Speaker 1: So we're constantly shifting into alternate universes as we speak.
Speaker 2: Right now, Right now, this shift is happening below the
threshold of our perception.
Speaker 1: That traumatically alsers our understanding of time and stability. I mean,
if we are constantly shifting timelines with every electron spin.
Why do we experience such temporal continuity? Are there arguments
in the source material that explain the mechanism that locks
a perception to one consistent stream, making the jump seamless.
Speaker 2: That's the key question, and Max's idea, which is supported
by connections to the holographic universe theory, suggests our consciousness
acts as a filter or a lock. Our perception is
what creates the continuity.
Speaker 1: So our brains are just stitching it all together pretty much.
Speaker 2: He posited that the difference between each millisecond jump is
so minuteless than that one percent CERN jump that our
brains predictive and associative functions simply stitch the reality together.
They make the transition invisible.
Speaker 1: But the CERN event was different.
Speaker 2: The CERN event, however, was so massive that the one
percent change caused the seam to tear, leaving behind these
residual memories.
Speaker 1: He summarized this perfectly with a vast analogy that helps
visualize this chaos. Reality isn't a single film strip playing
from start to finish.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. It's like watching millions of versions
of the same movie, all happening at once. Every tiny choice.
Every quantum fluctuation creates a new cut of the film.
Speaker 1: And we are experiencing all of them simultaneously, but only
perceive one at a time.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The continuity we feel is just our brain successfully
editing out the flicker between the frames.
Speaker 1: This concept, however impossibly vast, has deep roots in modern
serious physics, doesn't it. Max wasn't just operating in a
vacuum of his own.
Speaker 2: Creation, Oh, absolutely not. His ideas immediately connect to the
arguments of the leading quantum physicist David Deutsch from Oxford.
He's a major proponent of the many worlds interpretation, and
Deutsch has argued for decades that quantum mechanics doesn't just
allow for parallel universes, it naturally and mathematically requires them
to exist side by side.
Speaker 1: And the classic conceptual anchor for this, of course, is
the many world's interpretation, which was first proposed by Hugh
Everett way back in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: Precisely, Everett's interpretation suggests that the wave function, which governs
the probability of quantum events, doesn't collapse into one outcome
when you observe a particle. Instead, the universe splits into
all of them.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's anchor this for the listener, like with Schrodinger's
cat perfect example.
Speaker 2: In the old Copenhagen interpretation, the cat is simultaneously alive
and dead until you open the box. In the Many
World's interpretation, when you open the box, the universe splits.
In one universe you see a living cat. In the other,
you see a dead cat, and both realities are equally real.
Speaker 1: We are simply traveling along the version where the cat lived.
Speaker 2: That's it, and Max Lewin's brilliance was in suggesting that
cern was the force that caused not a natural split,
but a violent force transfer from one branch to another.
Speaker 1: So if quantum uncertainty means particles exist in multiple states
until observation fixes one, Max extended this to suggest that
on a large scale, reality itself forms or is selected
as it's observed that links the infinite variations together via consciousness.
Speaker 2: It does, and the sources also reference other supporting concepts,
like Michael Talbot's suggestion in the holographic.
Speaker 1: Universe, the idea that reality might be a projection where
every piece contains the whole exactly.
Speaker 2: It allows infinite variations to exist simultaneously, much like a
fragmented hologram, where each piece still contains the entire image.
This provides a theoretical substrate for how millions of realities
could exist packed together in the same dimensional space.
Speaker 1: And Max didn't stop at the physics. He pushed into
the profound and the almost metaphysical. He connected these infinite
realities to the most fundamental equation known to science.
Speaker 2: He made a stunning, almost mystical leap. He connected ems
Einstein's mass energy equivalents with the concept of divinity.
Speaker 1: He said God is everything because.
Speaker 2: Of emc tor Yeah, suggesting that energy and mass are
fundamentally interchangeable manifestations of a core eternal force. He implies
that energy and reality in their infinite forms are the
definition of the divine structure. And since energy is ubiquitous,
God is within and can be everything.
Speaker 1: And to quantify this concept of infinite existence, Max delved
into mathematics. Frankly, most people never encounter outside of advanced studies,
the levels of infinity. This is the point that needs careful,
slow explanation.
Speaker 2: It's crucial because it addresses a common paradox. How can
one infinity be bigger than another? Max was touching on
the real mathematical concept known as a lef null or.
Speaker 1: Which was used by the mathematician George Kanter to describe
different sizes of infinity.
Speaker 2: Right, it distinguishes between countable and uncountable infinities.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's slow that down. What does countable infinity mean
versus uncountable?
Speaker 2: Okay, So, countable infinity is like the set of all
whole numbers one, two, three, four, and so on. You
can count forever, so it's infinite, but you can assign
a number to each element. That's the smallest type of infinity.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Uncountable infinity, however, is the infinity of all real numbers.
That includes all the decimals, fractions, and irrational numbers that
exist between say one and two. You can never finish
counting them because there's always an infinite amount of space
between any two points you pick.
Speaker 1: That is incredibly abstract. How did Max use geometry to
make that tangible for us?
Speaker 2: He used a perfect analogy. Imagine a single line segment
running from point A to point B. That segment is
finite in length, right, but now think of the space
between those two points. You can draw a fraction affraction closer,
affraction smaller, and so on, creating an infinite number of
possible locations within that confined space.
Speaker 1: That's fascinating. So that line segment contains an infinite number
of points, yet it's still bounded by points A and B.
That's the concept of a confined infinity exactly.
Speaker 2: It exists within boundaries, much like our physical dimensional space.
Max was essentially suggesting this corresponds to one level of infinity.
But then he asked the next question.
Speaker 1: What happens when you add another line?
Speaker 2: What happens when you add another line extending outward indefinitely?
You move from the finite segment containing infinite points to
an infinite plane containing an infinite number of those segments.
Speaker 1: So that becomes an infinity that is not confined. It's larger,
and Max suggested it still exists within the same broader
dimensional space as the smaller, confined infinity. He was using
this to visualize his multiverse model.
Speaker 2: His final synthesis detailed that, considering there's an infinite number
of vibrations and therefore an infinite number of parallel realities
within our dimensional space, some higher, some lower, all slightly different,
this all creates a powerful or less powerful form of
God MC as we know.
Speaker 1: It, so a structure where countless universes exist side by side,
all slightly different, creating a whole infinite multiverse within our
perceived existence.
Speaker 2: And the one percent difference the residue of the Mandela
effect is simply the proof that we are experiencing this infinite,
tesimally small yet catastrophic difference between realities.
Speaker 1: What's truly fascinating here is that someone discussing such profound,
complex and potentially reality shattering theories and doing it so
articulately linking physics, math, philosophy, he should have become a
global sensation, constantly sought out for interviews and lectures.
Speaker 2: A theoretical superstar.
Speaker 1: Right, you would think so, But the timeline of events
that followed his viral exposure around twenty sixteen is profoundly unnerving.
Shortly after the video of him discussing cern and the
reality shift went viral, the genius kid Max Leewan completely disappears.
No social media updates, no new interviews, no lectures, nothing.
For years, the Internet was just buzzing with what happened
to the kid who said Sern broke reality.
Speaker 2: That long silence is terrifying, especially when the subject matter
is the very instability of existence. It raises the immediate,
uncomfortable question if he was right about the shift. Maybe
he wasn't just.
Speaker 1: Silent, Maybe he was silence.
Speaker 2: Silenced by the powers that be in the new reality.
That silence lasted until April twenty second, twenty twenty A
message suddenly appeared on Max's Facebook page.
Speaker 1: What did it say?
Speaker 2: I like to build things. I want to change the
world and make it a better place. I also hope
to inspire and internet searches confirmed he was alive, which
was a relief to his followers, but the sheer length
of that silence, four years immediately fall following his most
provocative claims, is extremely difficult to dismiss as just burnout.
Speaker 1: And when he finally reappeared, Max shifted focus entirely. He
went from pure theoretical physics to applied disruptive physics, specifically
detailing a device he had built.
Speaker 2: He entered another realm of controversial science, one that has
a very long history.
Speaker 1: Of suppression free energy.
Speaker 2: Free energy. This was his second equally paradigm shattering act.
Max gave a presentation where he laid out his fundamental
premise everything is just a frequency of energy. All the
energy in the universe is already here. It's an abundant resource.
Speaker 1: It needs to be transferred or accessed and converted into
a usable form exactly.
Speaker 2: The implication being that energy isn't something we have to
laboriously create by burning finite resources. It's ubiquitous. It's surrounding
us like an invisible wasted resource zero point energy or
radiant energy.
Speaker 1: And he claimed he built a device that could do it.
Speaker 2: He claimed he had successfully finished creating a device that
takes waste electromagnetic energy from all around us and converts
it into electrical power. His declaration was simple and triumphant,
VOI la free energy.
Speaker 1: Now we have to acknowledge that free energy or zero
point energy is a really sensitive topic. It often sits
on the fringes of academic science.
Speaker 2: It does, but regardless of its scientific acceptance, the potential
economic and geopolitical implications are what create the controversy. And
according to the sources, this pattern of suppression and.
Speaker 1: The host's observation from the sources here is crucial. I
think the history of this field is just littered with
stories of people who claim to invent similar zero point
or free energy devices, And the pattern is always disturbingly
the same, the.
Speaker 2: Pattern of suppression. Almost every time these inventors were ridiculed
into irrelevance, they faced massive crippling lawsuits, they had their
patents bought and shelved.
Speaker 1: Or they just disappeared from the public eye and from
funding streams.
Speaker 2: And the implication of this pattern is pretty easy to
grasp when you follow the money. Why does this consistent
suppression exist Because a working device like this, something that
allows truly inexpensive, decentralized electricity without fuel costs, it.
Speaker 1: Could threaten entire industries overnight. It destabilizes the global economic
structures based on fossil fuels, which requires centralized extraction, processing,
and distribution through vast utility networks.
Speaker 2: This would crush oil and gas, It would eliminate coal.
It would decimate the massive entrenched utility companies that control
the flow of power. The threat isn't just to one sector,
it's to the trillions of dollars invested globally in conventional
energy infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So if Max Lewin, the young man who claimed he
broke reality, suddenly reappears with technology that breaks the entire
global energy economy.
Speaker 2: The pressure to silence him, to discredit him, or to
make him vanish for good is immense. The context of
his long silence immediately following his reality breaking claims and
preceding his free energy claims makes that period of absence
even more chilling and potentially illuminating.
Speaker 1: Effective connects his two core narratives, the instability of reality
and the instability of the global economy, both subjects, it seems,
or topics one might be forced into silence over if
they speak too eloquently or.
Speaker 2: Worse, succeed too profoundly.
Speaker 1: If Max Lewin explained the physical mechanism of reality shifting,
the electron spin and the catastrophic LHC event, we need
to turn to the mechanism of perception. Why don't the
vast majority of us notice this constant shifting?
Speaker 2: And for that we turned to the researchers Sach Bentoff,
who attempted to link consciousness directly to physics and neurology.
Speaker 1: Bentov suggested that our reality isn't limited by the universe,
but rather by our own sensory apparatus. He argued that
we only see a limited spectrum of light. We can't
perceive beyond UV or infrared.
Speaker 2: And we hear only a limited scale of vibrations. We
are essentially biologically filtered exactly.
Speaker 1: Our senses are incredibly limited instruments. With these limited senses,
Bentov argued, we are naturally seen through a very narrow
kind of tube, or very narrow slit in the total
reality there is.
Speaker 2: We are only perceiving the surface frequency of existence, a
narrow band on an infinite dial.
Speaker 1: So we're basically living in a sensory prison, unaware of
the vast shifting reality that Bentov claimed exists outside our
narrow bandwidth, whether that includes parallel dimensions or just higher
energy frequencies.
Speaker 2: But Bentoff theorized that this isn't a permanent evolutionary state.
He believed that as the human nervous system evolves and adapts,
maybe through meditation or trauma or just simple biological chance,
that narrow slit of perceptions slowly opens, revealing more of
the total reality that already exists around us. It's an
unlocking process, right, But what happens, according to Bentov, when
this opening occurs too quickly, too suddenly overwhelming the mind's
ability to integrate the new data stream.
Speaker 1: That apparently is where society steps in with a medical diagnosis.
Speaker 2: Bentov suggested that people who experience this setter expansion of
perception suddenly perceive a very changed reality. Naturally, they can't
function well in the shared, narrower, consensual reality of everyone
else because they are processing two realities simultaneously.
Speaker 1: And the social consequence is profound. We classify them. Society
categorizes these individuals as mentally ill, often diagnosing them with
conditions like schizophrenia and subsequently placing them in mental hospitals
for treatment.
Speaker 2: Benoff offer this radical perspective, calling this sudden, uncontrolled opening
a premature step in evolution, where the senses have expanded
faster than the mind can successfully integrate the new data streams,
leading to what looks like psychosis to those who are
still operating within the narrow slip.
Speaker 1: That's a powerful, almost disturbing reinterpretation of mental illness, suggesting
that perhaps certain conditions are not a failure of the mind,
but rather an uncontrolled success of evolution. But how does
this connect to max Lonan's shifting realities and the Mandela effect?
Speaker 2: It provides the subjective explanation. If Max is right that
reality shifts every millisecond. Most of us don't notice the
jump because our perception is locked to the current reality.
But if your slit suddenly opens, you might be able
to perceive the immediate past reality.
Speaker 1: The one we just shifted from, the one where the
electron had a different weight, or the one where Mandela
died in the eighties exactly.
Speaker 2: That makes the specific anecdote Bentoff provided terrifyingly relevant. You
remember the story of the grandmother at the dinner table.
Speaker 1: Tell us that story.
Speaker 2: It's a classic example. A family sitting at the dinner table.
A kid, maybe in their teens, looks up and suddenly
says to his mother, hey ma, look at there's our
dead grandmother standing in the corner.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: And the mother, whose perceptual slit is firmly closed, she
denies it completely. She says, no, there's nothing there. There's
something wrong with you. You're crazy.
Speaker 1: The family unit is immediately destabilized. The mother, seeking to
restore the consensual, narrow reality, takes the child to a psychiatrist, and.
Speaker 2: The psychiatrist prescribes medication bentof specifically mentioned thorizine or possibly
electroshock therapy. The objective of this intervention is to restore normalcy.
Within two weeks, the kid is back in shape, very normal.
Speaker 1: But the profound statement from the narrator is that there's
a good chance that that kid has seen the true
wider reality.
Speaker 2: That's the chilling part.
Speaker 1: If Bentov's theory holds, why would medication like thorazine be
effective at closing the slit? Does the source material offer
a chemical or physical explanation for how brain function manages
the perception of reality.
Speaker 2: Well, the understanding is that these strong antipsychotics act as
severe chemical restraints on neurotransmitters. They specifically dampen the complex,
fast firing systems of the brain, particularly those dealing with
sensory input and association.
Speaker 1: So they're just turning down the volume.
Speaker 2: Bentoff implies that the medication's damping effect forces the highly sensitive,
highly active nervous system back into a baseline, lower frequency state.
It effectively reduces the bandwidth of the slit. It's not
a cure for a mental fault, it's a chem lock
on an advanced biological function.
Speaker 1: That's truly chilling. I mean, imagine the sheer cognitive load
of suddenly gaining access to the sea's relatives or parallel
layers of existence the rest of society cannot perceive. You're
forced to choose between functioning in the world as you
knew it or accepting a truth that isolates you completely
and gets you labeled as insane.
Speaker 2: It fundamentally questions the line between subjective and objective reality.
If Max Lewin is right that we constantly shift timelines,
and Bentof is right that only a few people have
a wide enough sensory slit to detect the inconsistencies, the
residual memory of the dead grandmother or the magic mirror.
Speaker 1: Line, then perhaps what we call subjective reality is actually
a brief, terrifying glimpse of the objective multiverse that everyone
else is too limited to see.
Speaker 2: Right, It makes me wonder about those moments where you
swear you saw something out of the corner of your
eye or heard a name whispered when no one was there.
Speaker 1: Are those just fleeting instances where the slit twitch is
open before snapping shut again a quick flash of the
one percent difference.
Speaker 2: If Max Leewan provided the scientific theory of the shift
and Bentoff provided the mechanism of perception, we now turned
to a Thinger who provided the philosophical framework for a
rewritten past. Decades before the LHC or the popularization of
the Mandela effect, the legendary science fiction writer Philip K.
Speaker 1: Dick. Dick is famous for writing stories that questioned the
very nature of reality, the inspiration for Blade Runner and
Total Recall, but his ideas moved beyond fiction into stark
personal belief.
Speaker 2: In nineteen seventy seven, in Metz, France, he made a
public claim that sounded utterly unbelievable, even paranoid at the time.
Speaker 1: He didn't just suggest we lived in an unreal world.
Dick claimed our reality had been laterally shifted. He argued
that a variable was changed or reprogrammed as it were
in our past.
Speaker 2: Causing an alternative world to branch it off and became
actualized instead of the prior one.
Speaker 1: A lateral shift in time. This is key, not just
moving forward from a fixed past, but the pathway itself
was retroactively altered, and we kept walking forward without noticing
the g tour because the detour was already in our memory.
Speaker 2: He concluded that we are living in a computer programmed reality,
and the only clue we have to this massive reprogramming
is when some variable is changed and some alteration in
our reality occurs.
Speaker 1: For an audience in nineteen seventy seven, talking about a
computer programmed reality was pure radical science fiction.
Speaker 2: But his words now sound like an incredibly prescient, eloquent
description of what people today call the Mandela effect. The
alteration in our reality is precisely that cognitive dissonance we
feel when the past, our shared cultural archive doesn't match
the present records.
Speaker 1: To clarify this subtle philosophical difference between a linear change
and a lateral shift, Dick provided a beautiful and detailed
metaphor which is essential to understanding why the inconsistencies linger.
Speaker 2: Let's delve into that analogy of the rich patron and
his servants as it perfectly captures the horror of a
rewritten history.
Speaker 1: Okay, set the scene for us.
Speaker 2: This, a very rich patron of the arts hangs a
masterpiece above his fireplace. Every day, the patron returns and
his servants, as decreed, must hang a new picture. They
remove the old one and replace it with a completely
different masterpiece.
Speaker 1: This, Dick calls change along the linear axis. It's clean
sequential replacement. We expect the past be different from the present.
Speaker 2: This is how we generally perceive time to work. A
new day brings a new, fresh reality that supersedes the
previous one. But what happens when the servants run out
of new replacement pictures?
Speaker 1: They can't just leave the old one.
Speaker 2: They cannot leave the present one hanging because the employer
decreed perpetual replacement and change. So they resort to a
far more devious trick. When the employer is not looking,
they cunningly alter the picture already on the wall.
Speaker 1: They don't replace the painting, they edit the original. They
paint out a tree here, or paint in a little
girl there. They make the same painting fundamentally different, but
not new in the sense of complete replacement.
Speaker 2: The core structure is there that the details are fluid.
Speaker 1: So the employer returns expecting a completely new piece of.
Speaker 2: Art, but he sees something that is different but also
strangely familiar. He contemplates the painting and his memory twitches.
He thinks, it certainly isn't what I saw previously, but
also somehow I seem to remember a tree, though, and
there is no tree.
Speaker 1: That is the perfect distillation of the Mandela effect and
what Max Lowney was describing as the one percent difference.
We remember the tree, we remember the spelling Berenstein, but
the current painting the objective record is telling us the
tree was never there.
Speaker 2: It means the alteration occurred before we looked at it last.
In the past itself, the past was edited, not merely superseded.
Speaker 1: The metaphor perfectly illustrates a lateral shift in time. The
past itself is altered, and people continue living in the
new version, only catching subtle inconsistencies.
Speaker 2: The remnants of the previous edit, like the ghostly memory
of the tree or the mirror mirror line. It provides
them mechanism for why these memories are shared, because the
collective pass shared by the servants was the one that
was edited, and the employer retains faint memories of the original.
Speaker 1: And finally, we returned to the eerie coincidence that links
Max Loan, Philip K. Dick, and countless others who ventured
too close to the edge of reality or threaten the
system's stability.
Speaker 2: The sources highlight a strange and persistent pattern that runs
across various fields. People who talk about parallel realities, time
being rewritten, free energy, or the universe not being what
it seems. They often vanish or face professional eradication.
Speaker 1: Some die young, some disappear completely, or others just fade
from the internet and historical record as if they never existed.
Speaker 2: This suggests if the system is indeed a programmed reality
or an established economic order, it possesses a powerful, unseen
defense mechanism, a feedback loop that silences or suppresses those
who become too aware of the changes or too powerful
a disruption.
Speaker 1: The question becomes unavoidable. Then is this pattern coincidence or
were they right all along and the system is merely
enforcing its stability against either physical or economic threats.
Speaker 2: The ultimate chilling conclusion that ties all these threads together,
from the electron spin to the mind slit to the
edited painting, is the possibility that reality truly.
Speaker 1: Shifts, and the reason we don't notice the massive alterations,
the destruction of a universe, or the rewriting of history
is precisely because of what Max Lween suggested.
Speaker 2: That we're already living in the new version. We are
constantly catching up to the edited reality. Minute by minute,
electron spin by electron spin.
Speaker 1: We've covered thrilling and profoundly disturbing territory today tracing the
threads from particle physics to philosophy. We started with Max
Loewan's cern theory that the alteration of a single electron's
weight destroyed our universe and shifted us to a parallel,
imbalanced one.
Speaker 2: We explored the mechanism of infinite branching supported by quantum
giants like Deutsch and Everett, showing reality as a constant
flow anchored to consciousness.
Speaker 1: We then explored the strange pattern of suppression surrounding disruptive
ideas such as Max's free energy device, highlighting how powerful
vested interests react to existential threats to their stability.
Speaker 2: And finally, we linked the science of the shift to
the psychology of perception through Bentov's theory of the mind slit,
suggesting that those who see the glitches are just premature
evolutionary leaps, and the philosophical terror of a rewritten past
described by Philip K. Dick's perfect painting metaphor.
Speaker 1: Here is the final provocation that builds on everything we've
discussed today.
Speaker 2: If our reality is constantly shifting due to every electron
spin as Max suggested, and only those with spontaneously open
senses like Bentov's premature evolution. Patients notice the difference and
see the dead grandmother in the corner. Is our collective
inability to see the shift a sign of universal stability
or is it simply proof of widespread perceptual limitation.
Speaker 1: Are we functionally blind to the dynamism of existence content
In the narrow tube of consensus, we are seeing a
one percent difference, but the implications are one hundred percent
if you accept Maxiwum's premise, which fundamental constant or historical
event do you believe was altered when we jumped realities?
Speaker 2: So we turn this question directly to you. What is
your specific personal Mandela effect memory that completely breaks your
sense of reality? Do you believe the inconsistencies in the
world are glitches left over from a lateral shift or
simply flaws in human memory struggling to cope with an
objective but confusing reality.
Speaker 1: Ponder that question and continue the conversation with us. This
is one thrilling thread that we think needs to be
pulled until it unravels the very fabric of the known world.