Having spent a reasonable amount of time studying the John Titor story, which I am convinced is a hoax, I have noticed a few issues that don't seem to get much coverage.
Worldline divergence: Or, covering your behind
No matter what happens over the next few years, it can be bent to fit Titor's story by worldline divergence or by other means supported by his story. Examine the following four points:
1, The author made several specific references to future events (eg 2004 would be the last Olympics, the US of 2008 would be very obviously in civil war, and there would be a short WWIII in 2015).
2, The author stated that there was around a 2% divergence in our worldline from his.
3, He also hinted his presence and actions 'may' have altered it further.
4, Finally, just to cover his behind extra strong, he hinted at some points that he 'may' have done something (either wittingly or unwittingly) which 'may' have totally changed our worldline. Additionally, he said that although it would be unlikely, it is a possibility that we could change our future and avoid, for example, the war.
All 4 of these points are a part of of his story. Each can be referred to as an explanation for various future outcomes. Let's correlate 4 possible outcomes of the predicted events with each of these 4 explanations.
Type 1: Events which directly correlate with what the author said. For example, the 2008 Olympics get cancelled, and there is obvious civil war in 2008. (Conclusion: The author was correct)
Type 2: Events occur slightly different from what the author said. (Conclusion: The author was correct but the 2% worldline divergence between his worldine and ours accounts for the slight differences)
Type 3: Events occur significantly different from what the author said. (Conclusion: The author was correct originally, but his visitation to our worldine and his actions here, on top of the 2% divergence, causes things to be significantly different)
Type 4: Events do not occur at all as the author said. (Conclusion: Either the author really did do something that drastically changed our future while he was here (well done John!), or through our actions, maybe even our sheer determination, we managed to change our future for the better (well done guys!))
Examine these four types of possible outcomes carefully. All 4 of them are explainable by John Titor's writings. Is there a problem here?
I believe so.
Every possible outcome of his predicted events is explainable by one of these 4! What does this mean? It means that no matter what happens, his story is, essentially, unrefutable.
If things happen exactly as he said, one can assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things happen slightly different, one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things happen significantly different, one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things do not happen at all like he said - suprise - one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller! (and praise either him for secretly taking action to 'save' us, or praise us for taking action to 'save' ourselves to boot).
No matter what happens, he can never be said to be wrong. His story is constructed in such a way that it essentially contains an explanation for any possible outcome. The hoaxer I feel was clever in this regard, and skilled at ensuring this was subtle.
Let's imagine a little scenario. I tell you I can read minds. You decide to test me out by thinking of a day of the week, and asking me to read it. I sit for a moment in a look of concentration. After a few moments, I tell you the following:
"I have a strong feeling it is Sunday, very very strong. It also may me Monday too, or Tuesday. However, there is also the possibility you are thinking of Wednesday, and additionally perhaps Thursday would make sense. Oh, there is also the chance it could be Friday because in addition to my ESP, there is fairie energy also calling to me about that particular day. Finally, I may be making all 6 of those explanations up to trick you, because I secretly know that you are REALLY thinking of Saturday. I really might! Or might not. You'll just have to wait and find out." I wink at you.
No matter what day you were thinking of, you can never really say I got it wrong.
Take a look at your horoscope for today in a magazine or a website. If the writer was skilled, they would have ensured that their prediction is worded in such a way that it cannot be pronounced wrong or incorrect. I remember recently seeing: "You may have success with money matters today." Notice the key word is 'may', not 'will'. By the end of the day, it was obvious I had not had success with money matters. But the horoscope didn't tell me I 'would', only that I 'may'. Hence, the horoscope technically is not incorrect - and never can be.
Future Technology: Or, circular reasoning
"But your time machine/time travel cannot possibly work! Here is the mathematical proof that the way you described it doesn't hold water."
Reply: "Only under your physics does it not make sense. Our physics in the future has advanced further and we discovered that things actually work different from what we previously thought."
Many people argue that this helps reinforce John's story. First, I am going to examine (only) the nature of these arguments, and show that it is not possible to argue this way without using circular reasoning.
Proposition 1: John is really a time traveller.
Proposition 2: Physics takes this particular direction in the future
The proposition that John is a time traveller relies on physics taking this particular direction in the future.
But, the proposition that physics takes this particular direction in the future relies on John's account of it, but John's account of future physics is only accurate if he really is a time traveller. Hence, the proposition that physics takes this particular direction in the future relies on John really being a time traveller.
Hence...
Proving the truth of Proposition 1 requires Proposition 2 to be true. But proving the truth of Proposition 2 requires Proposition 1 to be true.
As a result of this, it is not possible to construct an argument proving either one or the other without using circular reasoning, also known as 'begging the question'.
This does not mean I am saying it is impossible for them to both be true. I am only saying it is impossible to construct arguments which try to logically prove that either: John Titor is a genuine time traveller, or that physics takes a particular new direction in the future. You can believe them if you like, but you would have to take it on faith rather than logical argument. As logical argument cannot prove either of those propositions without committing a fallacy. I know this sounds obvious, but it's suprising how many people don't notice that problem...
There is much more that can be said about these two things, but no time now. Suffice to say, I think the author of the John Titor story was very careful to both subtly make many references which ensure that his predictions cannot technically be 'wrong' regardless of what happens. Additionally that he was careful to write a story which, upon first read, seems to be believable by being seemingly rational and well-supported, but which really can only be believed through faith, despite being in this guise.
On both counts, the story and the way in which it gains believers bears many similarities to various "New Age" religions.
Worldline divergence: Or, covering your behind
No matter what happens over the next few years, it can be bent to fit Titor's story by worldline divergence or by other means supported by his story. Examine the following four points:
1, The author made several specific references to future events (eg 2004 would be the last Olympics, the US of 2008 would be very obviously in civil war, and there would be a short WWIII in 2015).
2, The author stated that there was around a 2% divergence in our worldline from his.
3, He also hinted his presence and actions 'may' have altered it further.
4, Finally, just to cover his behind extra strong, he hinted at some points that he 'may' have done something (either wittingly or unwittingly) which 'may' have totally changed our worldline. Additionally, he said that although it would be unlikely, it is a possibility that we could change our future and avoid, for example, the war.
All 4 of these points are a part of of his story. Each can be referred to as an explanation for various future outcomes. Let's correlate 4 possible outcomes of the predicted events with each of these 4 explanations.
Type 1: Events which directly correlate with what the author said. For example, the 2008 Olympics get cancelled, and there is obvious civil war in 2008. (Conclusion: The author was correct)
Type 2: Events occur slightly different from what the author said. (Conclusion: The author was correct but the 2% worldline divergence between his worldine and ours accounts for the slight differences)
Type 3: Events occur significantly different from what the author said. (Conclusion: The author was correct originally, but his visitation to our worldine and his actions here, on top of the 2% divergence, causes things to be significantly different)
Type 4: Events do not occur at all as the author said. (Conclusion: Either the author really did do something that drastically changed our future while he was here (well done John!), or through our actions, maybe even our sheer determination, we managed to change our future for the better (well done guys!))
Examine these four types of possible outcomes carefully. All 4 of them are explainable by John Titor's writings. Is there a problem here?
I believe so.
Every possible outcome of his predicted events is explainable by one of these 4! What does this mean? It means that no matter what happens, his story is, essentially, unrefutable.
If things happen exactly as he said, one can assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things happen slightly different, one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things happen significantly different, one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller. If things do not happen at all like he said - suprise - one can still assert he was a genuine time traveller! (and praise either him for secretly taking action to 'save' us, or praise us for taking action to 'save' ourselves to boot).
No matter what happens, he can never be said to be wrong. His story is constructed in such a way that it essentially contains an explanation for any possible outcome. The hoaxer I feel was clever in this regard, and skilled at ensuring this was subtle.
Let's imagine a little scenario. I tell you I can read minds. You decide to test me out by thinking of a day of the week, and asking me to read it. I sit for a moment in a look of concentration. After a few moments, I tell you the following:
"I have a strong feeling it is Sunday, very very strong. It also may me Monday too, or Tuesday. However, there is also the possibility you are thinking of Wednesday, and additionally perhaps Thursday would make sense. Oh, there is also the chance it could be Friday because in addition to my ESP, there is fairie energy also calling to me about that particular day. Finally, I may be making all 6 of those explanations up to trick you, because I secretly know that you are REALLY thinking of Saturday. I really might! Or might not. You'll just have to wait and find out." I wink at you.
No matter what day you were thinking of, you can never really say I got it wrong.
Take a look at your horoscope for today in a magazine or a website. If the writer was skilled, they would have ensured that their prediction is worded in such a way that it cannot be pronounced wrong or incorrect. I remember recently seeing: "You may have success with money matters today." Notice the key word is 'may', not 'will'. By the end of the day, it was obvious I had not had success with money matters. But the horoscope didn't tell me I 'would', only that I 'may'. Hence, the horoscope technically is not incorrect - and never can be.
Future Technology: Or, circular reasoning
"But your time machine/time travel cannot possibly work! Here is the mathematical proof that the way you described it doesn't hold water."
Reply: "Only under your physics does it not make sense. Our physics in the future has advanced further and we discovered that things actually work different from what we previously thought."
Many people argue that this helps reinforce John's story. First, I am going to examine (only) the nature of these arguments, and show that it is not possible to argue this way without using circular reasoning.
Proposition 1: John is really a time traveller.
Proposition 2: Physics takes this particular direction in the future
The proposition that John is a time traveller relies on physics taking this particular direction in the future.
But, the proposition that physics takes this particular direction in the future relies on John's account of it, but John's account of future physics is only accurate if he really is a time traveller. Hence, the proposition that physics takes this particular direction in the future relies on John really being a time traveller.
Hence...
Proving the truth of Proposition 1 requires Proposition 2 to be true. But proving the truth of Proposition 2 requires Proposition 1 to be true.
As a result of this, it is not possible to construct an argument proving either one or the other without using circular reasoning, also known as 'begging the question'.
This does not mean I am saying it is impossible for them to both be true. I am only saying it is impossible to construct arguments which try to logically prove that either: John Titor is a genuine time traveller, or that physics takes a particular new direction in the future. You can believe them if you like, but you would have to take it on faith rather than logical argument. As logical argument cannot prove either of those propositions without committing a fallacy. I know this sounds obvious, but it's suprising how many people don't notice that problem...
There is much more that can be said about these two things, but no time now. Suffice to say, I think the author of the John Titor story was very careful to both subtly make many references which ensure that his predictions cannot technically be 'wrong' regardless of what happens. Additionally that he was careful to write a story which, upon first read, seems to be believable by being seemingly rational and well-supported, but which really can only be believed through faith, despite being in this guise.
On both counts, the story and the way in which it gains believers bears many similarities to various "New Age" religions.
