No. Historians can't even agree on how widely documented major historical events in recent history went down.

>>18435115
You'll figure out that all stories are bullshit. Non-existent.

>>18435115
maybe if there's a stable wormhole that popped up before the earth was created and is still floating around out there, moving at relativistic speeds, and we manage to find it and send in a probe which, due to time dilation, would actually go into the past, then we would be able to record the entire history of the planet
or maybe with some insane configuration of gravitational lenses we could point a telescope back at earth in the past
I often daydream about a good enough simulation, taking all our archeological and geological data and extrapolating
lots of gaps, lots of "hallucinations", but we could probably get very close
we could just go there and run multiple simulations with different variables and different assumptions. we wouldn't "know", but we could make more informed guesses. I imagine a future where historians go on field trips in these simulations for years at a time
maybe we're in one of those simulations now
hello, historians!

>>18435254
>all of history is fake
why are atheists like this?

>>18435115
You just kind of have to accept you'll never have all the answers no matter how hard to try, you'll go insane otherwise.

>>18435115
Once we invent a time machine, yeah, but then people will start changing history, so no.

I dunno is that genetic other-memory thing from Dune real?

>>18435115
if we manage to go faster than light yes

>>18435601
What if we're living with time travelers right now?

We don't even know everything about the present.

AI in 10 or 20 years will be able to break the entire universe down mathematically and create a formula for every single thing that has and will ever happen. Everyone will have access to every thought that you've ever had.

>>18436315
This can go both ways. Either AI can prove the Theory of Everything, or it can prove that there actually is no Theory of Everything and gravity cannot be elegantly explained on a quantum level

>>18435115
I know everything in history AMA