Tuesday, July 05, 2005

i just watched the movies 'The Forgotten' and 'The Machurian Canidate' and i just realized that nothing in our lives can actually be proven to have happened. the only proof we truly have is our memory since without the original memory we cannot draw connections between actual physical evidence. therefore it stands to reason that memory is not based on the past but rather the past is based on memory. it seems farfetched, but bear with me. it the past was changed, then we would remember it differently. however, time travel is essentially impossible, or at least ridicoulously expensive. however, if the memory of the past was changed all that would be remembered was the version of the past that had been changed. this is propoganda in its purest form.
however, the change in the past would not be completely complete if the people making the changes were not affected. the change can only take place once everyone, and i mean everyone believes and remembers the changes and not even the vaguest recollections of any other past.
therefore, in this situation, there would be no evidence of any other past other that the one remembered, i.e. the one changed esspecialy if the memory cahnge was done in conjuction with a number of physical changes like the destruction of history books and antiques.