A man named John Titor has done a great job explaining the principle of moving an object through time. It is indeed a very well-thought-out story filled with sophistry.
According to John Titor, in a general sense, there is no single timeline on which time itself flows. (- “Each journey leads to a very similar, but not identical, reality.”) Perhaps John took into account the fact that a more truthful version would be required to justify and explain this effect.
But then a question arises.
You are in the very timeline that “flowed” so that your timeline had everything that it has now. That is, everything happened so that what happened-happened for the moment that you are in now and you called that moment the present.
For example, yesterday you crashed your car into a tree because a squirrel jumped out on the road and you didn’t want to hit it and you hit the tree. Tomorrow has come (which means today), which means that you have passed through what has already happened and are now in the present. It is called Causality.
If you move from today to the past, you will drive slower, the squirrel will have time to run, and you will go further. And here is the question. I will not get to the hospital, the car will be in good condition further, I will make other decisions. This will affect a huge percentage more than Titor said (1-2%). But okay. Maybe in an exaggerated form, such actions will fall under such statistics.
But:
- Is the statement about “another timeline” just a way to avoid a logical contradiction?
If any change in the past is always declared a new reality, how can it be proven? - If every change to the past is simply explained as “you entered another timeline,” what evidence could ever prove that claim false? Isn’t it an unfalsifiable explanation?
was Pistachio B. Russell!
~QS