I'm from 2146, ask me anything

[Kairos]

Unfortunately, I have suspected for a while now that John Titor was Poul Anderson. If so, we won't get to have those beers, since Anderson is now dead. If I am not mistaken, John Titor's last posts were in Feb 2001, and Poul Anderson passed in July of that year from prostate cancer. If you read a lot of SF, and a lot of his works (especially some of the obscure ones), you will see the connection. I think if Titor was not Poul Anderson, Titor was highly influenced by him.

If I am right, this was why Titor's story is so good, so air-tight, and why he chose the themes that he chose. People would basically have been conversing with a grandmaster in science fiction.

 

[WhereIsMyMind]

Heyo, I am a soldier from the year 2146, long story short the time machine malfunctioned and now I'm here, since I'm probably not gonna live until my time, I'm here to anwser some questions because why not.

Why is your vanacular that of a 21st century westerner?

 

[Apri1]

You've provided no proof, there doesn't seem, to be a logical explanation, which means that you're lying. And at this point you're basically asking why people lie, well the main reason on the internet is for attention. And yes, you are running around lying about your past but for you, you haven't came out saying that you're lying, but you are. And you saying that you're not lying is a liar saying that he's not lying.

I'm happy to provide whatever is asked of me. Not sure what you mean by "there doesn't seem to be a logical explanation". Do you mean an explanation for why/how my travel happened? I discuss my understanding, thoughts, etc. on the phenomenon quite often here and elsewhere. I don't ask for or want attention. If I did I'd have immediately gone on apex TV and made up a wild tale involving all sorts of crazy sci-fi fantasy bullshit.

So I ask again: what did I lie about, and what is the truth? How do you know this? I'm happy to admit I have no physical evidence to show. I never claimed there was. And I never asked anyone to believe me. I understand the skepticism. But I love how your whole argument is "you're lying about not lying and if you say you aren't lying you're lying". It's pure rhetorical nonsense.

 

[tomkiel]

He was the grand master of time traveler hoaxers. He had convincing pictures and schematics of his fake time machine. He even developed fake science to describe how his time machine worked. He was so successful with his con job that some people still believe he was a real time traveler to this day.

that's. . . impressive if I say so myself

 

[Kairos]

There really isn't a shred of proof to back up the hypothesis of multiple universes. It's not real science if it does not make falsifiable predictions that you can test in a real, physical experiment.

Most of this stuff was invented because American physics were packed with atheists going back pretty far, and all the scientific advances of the first half of the twentieth century eerily echoed what various kinds of monotheists had been saying for a long time (time and space has a beginning, act and potency, etc). They believed this couldn't be right, so they engaged in what is essentially applied metaphysics (string theory, for example) that is not real science at all.

 

[tomkiel]

I'm happy to provide whatever is asked of me. Not sure what you mean by "there doesn't seem to be a logical explanation". Do you mean an explanation for why/how my travel happened? I discuss my understanding, thoughts, etc. on the phenomenon quite often here and elsewhere. I don't ask for or want attention. If I did I'd have immediately gone on apex TV and made up a wild tale involving all sorts of crazy sci-fi fantasy bullshit.

So I ask again: what did I lie about, and what is the truth? How do you know this? I'm happy to admit I have no physical evidence to show. I never claimed there was. And I never asked anyone to believe me. I understand the skepticism. But I love how your whole argument is "you're lying about not lying and if you say you aren't lying you're lying". It's pure rhetorical nonsense.

You lied about travelling inbetween time lines, and the truth is that you lied, or that you're crazy, pick your poison. How do I know this? Well if different time lines existed, you'd think that scientists could observe them, or do some calculations and come to the conclusion that yeah, they do exist. But for all those hundreds of years, nobody did that. And the only proof that you'll find is some pseudo-science website that you stumble randomly onto at 2 AM (like this one) And yes, if people lie and somebody says "You're a liar!" more often than not they'll say "nah mate, I ain't lying" And if a liar is saying that he's not lying, he's probably lying.

 

[Kairos]

That's fallacious too, though. Just because you lack evidence proving a proposition does not mean the proposition is false. All you can do is put a question mark above it. It may be true or it may be false. To claim that some proposition is untrue because you lack evidence violates the principle of noncontradiction which is a fundamental axiom of both logic and science.

Something does not become true simply because you proved it. It was true before you proved it too. To claim that it is false because you have no evidence for it, and then to claim it became true when you found evidence for it, is to say that something is true and false at the same time. But that's silly.

 

[tomkiel]

That's fallacious too, though. Just because you lack evidence proving a proposition does not mean the proposition is false. All you can do is put a question mark above it. It may be true or it may be false. To claim that some proposition is untrue because you lack evidence violates the principle of noncontradiction which is a fundamental axiom of both logic and science.

Something does not become true simply because you proved it. It was true before you proved it too. To claim that it is false because you have no evidence for it, and then to claim it became true when you found evidence for it, is to say that something is true and false at the same time. But that's silly.

so we can't say that unicorns exist because we have no evidence of them not existing? Alright, who am I kidding, here's a unicorn:

 

[Kairos]

so we can't say that unicorns exist because we have no evidence of them not existing? Alright, who am I kidding, here's a unicorn:

Well, in that case, we can argue we've already covered the land surface of the Earth and never discovered any unicorns, so they don't exist. You can still prove a proposition false, after all..

On the other hand, there was a time when the idea that a black swan existed would seem implausible, since nobody saw one of those fucking things. Until they did when the English showed up in Australia.. The existence of black swans was not true and untrue at the same time. It was always true. We just had not yet discovered evidence of them.

 

[Cirrus]

Well, in that case, we can argue we've already covered the land surface of the Earth and never discovered any unicorns, so they don't exist.

We haven't quite covered the entire surface of the Earth. There may be magical unicorns hanging out on North Sentinel Island or frozen in ice in Antarctica.