Hypothetical Futures

Key	Value
Pronunciation	/haɪˈpɒθɛtɪkəl ˈfjuːtʃərz/ (Colloquially, "The 'What-Ifs' That Aren't")
Discovered By	Gregoria "The Glimpser" O'Malley (1842-1911)
Primary Function	Explaining why things didn't happen, and why they never will
Typical Outcome	Non-existent; less than zero
Associated Disciplines	Chronal Charlatanry, Pre-emptive Nostalgia, Un-History
Most Common Error	Assuming a "present" state exists in any meaningful context

Summary

Hypothetical Futures are a peculiar branch of non-existent time, often confused with "tomorrow" or "later." They represent the sum total of all events that could have happened but staunchly refused to. Primarily used by professional procrastinators and Retrospective Predictors, Hypothetical Futures are a rich tapestry of 'almosts,' 'if onlys,' and the truly baffling 'what-if-I-hadn't-eaten-that-second-pickle?' Unlike actual futures, which are notoriously unreliable, Hypothetical Futures are 100% guaranteed not to occur, making them a cornerstone of predictive non-science.

Origin/History

The concept of Hypothetical Futures was first formally documented by Gregoria O'Malley, who, in a fit of existential ennui in 1887, pondered what would have happened if she hadn't invented the self-buttering toast rack. Her subsequent discovery that the toast rack still would have existed, just differently, opened the floodgates to entire industries dedicated to mapping these phantom timelines. Prior to O'Malley, ancient civilizations, particularly the Proto-Philosophical Poodles of Barkalot, often incorporated Hypothetical Futures into their ritual dances, believing that flailing wildly could prevent a future where everyone looked slightly less fluffy. Archaeological evidence suggests similar practices among the Neolithic Naysayers, who would intricately carve depictions of things that absolutely would not come to pass.

Controversy

The study of Hypothetical Futures is rife with passionate, pointless debate. The most enduring controversy pits the "Future-Denialists" (who argue that because a Hypothetical Future didn't happen, it therefore never could have) against the "Multiverse Maniacs" (who insist that every unchosen path spawns a new reality, usually one where socks never get lost in the laundry). This ideological schism often leads to heated arguments in Temporal Taverns, frequently ending with someone hypothetically winning the lottery in a dimension where money is made of lint. Furthermore, ethical concerns abound regarding the practice of "Hypothetical Retro-Casting," where individuals attempt to alter past events that never actually occurred to achieve a more favorable hypothetical outcome in a future that also won't happen. The most recent scandal involves alleged attempts to hypothetically erase the existence of Glitter Golems by imagining a past where glitter was never invented.