A new, physics based, explanation I have never seen anyone mention...

I came up with this about a year or so ago...

Maybe it's not a mass misremembering as some skeptics claim, but instead a product of quantum principles manifesting themselves at the macroscopic level....

Things that could have existed in multiple ways without altering the present in huge ways (i.e. a movie title wouldn't likely change the world history), actually do exist in multiple ways in the past... So history itself isn't set in stone, except for when that historical data would alter our history significantly if it was changed (I.e. Hitler will always exist in our history).

In other words: Things in the past that don't matter much to the current state of the world history aren't in direct observation by anything, so they are capable of existing in multiple states. Historical things that matter to the current state of the world history ARE in direct observation due to them affecting the current state of the world.

In other other words: I used to think that timelines blended and shifted, but it didn't explain how exactly they could do that. My theory provides an explanation for how things could shift and why. It implies that there aren't actual timelines.... But instead a history that isn't set in stone.

Time isn't really how we perceive it. What we perceive as the past is really just one possible "observed collapse" of all the possible configurations of matter that led to our current configuration. Therefore even our current state of being can be modified within limits if our observations of said history start to be ignored and said history doesn't matter much to the current state of being. Our current state of being isn't actually different from the past... It's all the same... Just perceived as coming after our history....

Example: I walk from my couch to my bedroom door. There is a camera that records my path chosen. There are three paths I could take. 1. Straight to the door where there are no obstacles. 2. Straight to the wall and then straight to the door where there are no obstacles. 3. Jump over the couch and then jump over the end table and jump over all the kid's toys on the ground then head to the bedroom door. I will most likely become permanently injured on this path.

With the first two paths, there isn't much difference. Both lead to me getting to my destination, likely unharmed. One may be longer, but ultimately they are both the same. The third however, carries the risk that I will be permanently injured. That injury could possibly define my future existence where I may have a permanent disability due to me tripping over something.

If I choose either of the first two paths, or choose the third path but don't get injured, then in my future, it is possible for a video showing my path chosen to change randomly to any of the three paths. There is less likelihood the video could change to the dangerous third path, since there was a high likelihood of injury associated with that path. The higher the likelihood of injury, the lower the likelihood that the video changes to show that path. But again, if I don't get injured, then the path chosen essentially doesn't matter to my future, and it becomes an arbitrary history.

If I choose the third path and get permanently injured, then the video will always show me getting injured and taking the third path.

Make sense?

Edit: Added some more explanations as well as an example conceptualization.