Titor thoughts
- Thread starter mduchable
- Start date
I'm part of an on-going investigation into the Titor phenomenon. If I may do so without arousing any ire - I would like to point out something.
After reading through the compiled original posts, I noticed something that everyone who posts about John's predictions fails to mention.
John pointed out numerous times that he would be unable to be 100% certain about his predictions due to his 'multiple world line' theory, in essence that our world line was not exactly like his, nor was 'he' technically from our 'future'. My question is this: While his claims are somewhat out of the ordinary, he never stated the predictions he made would definitely come true for us.
While I'm not sure if I subscribe the idea of a time traveller from the year 2036 coming back here and choosing to post on an online forum... I feel that if he/she is to be properly debunked, all facets of the discussion should be mentioned. Thusly - the 'multiple worldline' theory itself serves to ensure his predictions can't be held against him.
Also - if this person is real - his 'predictions' aren't 'predictions', instead - they are a recounting of historical events which took place in his worldline, and have yet to occur in ours. I seriously doubt the possibility of a civil war in the U.S. If there were to be one, I can assure you - the U.S. Military would not lose on it's own soil.
At any rate - I don't know where I stand with all of this just yet, but I'm curious as to why everyone is so quick to point out the failure of his 'predictions', but forget he also caveated everything with his 'multiple world line' theory.
Hope I didn't offend.
After reading through the compiled original posts, I noticed something that everyone who posts about John's predictions fails to mention.
John pointed out numerous times that he would be unable to be 100% certain about his predictions due to his 'multiple world line' theory, in essence that our world line was not exactly like his, nor was 'he' technically from our 'future'. My question is this: While his claims are somewhat out of the ordinary, he never stated the predictions he made would definitely come true for us.
While I'm not sure if I subscribe the idea of a time traveller from the year 2036 coming back here and choosing to post on an online forum... I feel that if he/she is to be properly debunked, all facets of the discussion should be mentioned. Thusly - the 'multiple worldline' theory itself serves to ensure his predictions can't be held against him.
Also - if this person is real - his 'predictions' aren't 'predictions', instead - they are a recounting of historical events which took place in his worldline, and have yet to occur in ours. I seriously doubt the possibility of a civil war in the U.S. If there were to be one, I can assure you - the U.S. Military would not lose on it's own soil.
At any rate - I don't know where I stand with all of this just yet, but I'm curious as to why everyone is so quick to point out the failure of his 'predictions', but forget he also caveated everything with his 'multiple world line' theory.
Hope I didn't offend.
I have mentioned this several times but "some" people here just keep ignoring it and saying because his "predictions" didnt come to pass he was a fraud.
The truth is they don't really have any way to prove he is a fraud. So I think they use this as one of their arguments. Yes, John did mention it several times in his posts but some people have chosen to ignore it.
The truth is they don't really have any way to prove he is a fraud. So I think they use this as one of their arguments. Yes, John did mention it several times in his posts but some people have chosen to ignore it.
Darby
Epochal Historian
As Pamela said, it's actually been discussed many times. He gave us a metric of "2% divergence" and said that it means one guy has blue eyes instead of green, etc. A slight change in eye color isn't the same thing as what has (or more appropriately, hasn't) occured relative to his tale.
But that's not the weakest part of the story. The "science" - physics and engineering - in the story is easily dismissed as pop culture sci-fi. One doesn't actually have to attack the details of the story itself to conclude that it's fiction.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Luder,
I'm happy to see how you worded that last sentence..."his" many worlds theory.
Keep in mind that the real Many Worlds Interpretation isn't a theory - it's an interpretation of how to explain some of the anamolous behavior of sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics. But what occurs in QM isn't how the world is seen classically. Extending a micro process of the QM world into the classical macro world isn't correct. There's nothing in MWI that states that whole universes "pop" into existence when a QM observation is made. It says that subatomic particles are located over a wide range of places - they're smeared out. People and places have quite definite velocities and positions while electrons have statistical ranges of values for those noncommutating states, i.e. uncertainty.
And we have to be careful with the idea of "worldlines". That term comes from General Relativity, not Quantum Mechanics. A worldline is the trace through spacetime that something takes as it lives out its history. It might end up in another universe, but that's not the same sort of "other universe" that QM attempts to deal with. The idea of other universes in GR is nothing much different that another galaxy in our universe. It's just a matter that that other universe's spacetime is not causally connected with our spacetime. It's history would be completely different than ours It would have nothing at all in common by way of causal effects (other than, maybe, the Big Bang) with our universe.
Time: Dr. Michio Kaku http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/time4.shtml
"Within extreme places in space, like black holes, time is squeezed to such an extent that, to an observer, it seems to stand still. Time is more variable that it could ever have been thought possible. It can even, theoretically, move backwards. This leads to one of the most extraordinary possibilities - a time machine."
Parallel universes exist - study http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0
Sept 23, 2007 "The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post is to anyone or everyone.
Ya, I guess that goes with attitude also.
"Within extreme places in space, like black holes, time is squeezed to such an extent that, to an observer, it seems to stand still. Time is more variable that it could ever have been thought possible. It can even, theoretically, move backwards. This leads to one of the most extraordinary possibilities - a time machine."
Parallel universes exist - study http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0
Sept 23, 2007 "The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post is to anyone or everyone.
Ya, I guess that goes with attitude also.