PUT

THE PERSONAL UNIVERSE THEORY

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where someone claims something happened in certain detail yet you know for a fact that is not how it happened? What do I mean? If you get in an argument with your partner, friend or anyone else and they insist you said something or they said something and you know with a 100% certainty it was not like that. This happens ALL THE TIME. Why? Is everione else a liar? Is everyones memory so much worse than yours? Based on the way human brain works the only solution to this is either of the above, there is no other logical conclusion.

But we know now that the ways we store information in our brains is not really as precise as it seams. We know that our momory is not exact science as it would be, for example, computer memory, or to make it more simple writing. When we have information written down it is exactly what it is, it is not subject to opinion, right?

John saw the man on the mountain with a telescope.

Who has the telescope? John, the man on the mountain, or the mountain?

Flying planes can be dangerous.

Either the act of flying planes is dangerous, or planes that are flying are dangerous.

The word of the Lord came to Zechariah, son of Berekiah, son of Iddo, the prophet.

Is the prophet Zechariah or Iddo?

 So what happens in our brain when we read one of those sentances? W don't store the exact sentance that we can later revise and see different meanings. We only store the information we get from it, and roughly so. After reading the first example sentance you will either store information that there was a man on a mountain and you would be 100% certain of it because John saw it himself with the telescope. Or you will know there was a man on the mountain with the telescope and u know it with 100% certainty because John saw him.

Imagine an argument now between the two people who got the sentance in two different ways. The question is did the man on the mountain have a telescope. One person (person A) will be convinced the man had a telescope and the other (person B) will be sure he didnt. So who is wright? Did the man have a telescope?

That sentance, the information both man are basing their convictions on, does not conclude weather the man had a telescope. Infact it doesnt even conclude there was a man on the mountain at all! Maybe john saw something (with his telescope) and taught it was a man, or maybe he saw something (without telescope) that looked like a man with a telescope.

So where does the PUT (Personal Universe Theory) come in?
The simplest way of explaining PUT is that in person A-s universe there was a man on the mountain with a telescope and John saw him. Where as in person b-s universe there was a man on the mountain and John saw him through his telescope. In my own universe, for example, there was no man on the mountain, there was no telescope, John doesn't exist, and even the mountain itself doesnt exist.

Other example would be if person A and person B saw the same movie and while talking about it they start arguing weather something happened before or after something else, or was the bad guy actually brother of the good guy. Those arguments can be settled by wacthing the movie again (or googling it or something) but untill it is resolved in each persons universe the story was set and they are suprised if it turns out to be different.

Unfortunately in most real life arguments (did the wife tell you about this meeting or not) there is no way to find out for sure what exactly happened and both parties maintain their side of the story as they both know they're wright and are certain of it.

Why do we spend so much time fighting over who is wright? Because we are so certain we are wright we have a need to enlighten the other person. We presume that in an argument where we know we are wright and the other party claims something different (even opposite), the other person must be wrong.

Opposite of wright has to be wrong.
Cant argue with that. So opposite of 'our wirght' has to be 'our wrong'. If in our own Personal Universe something is wright, opposite of that is, infact, wrong in that sam universe (but not the universe of the other person). Therefore, two different (opposite) opinions on a subject that can not be conclusivly defined can, infact, both be wright (in their respective universes)