The relation between world history and global history in that case will get sense when the scientific theory of history will be developed, the theory of natural process of evolution. Existence of "any real predictive power" seems incorrect, having in mind diverse real events of the present and the past. But modern achievements of natural sciences assert that qualitative transformations even in the physical phenomena depend on contingencies. In other words, law of all developments includes besides certain preconditions and stages also necessary fortuity.
H-History-and-Theory is sponsored by the journal, History and Theory, with the objective of increasing and broadening communication among its readers and those interested in the topics discussed in its pages: critical philosophy of history; speculative philosophy of history; historiography; history of historiography; historical methodology; critical theory; time and culture; related disciplines.
I’m not convinced that the following “Are these not both merely facets of continuing processes, so that the same body of theory should apply equally well looking forward as backwards?” is self-evidently the case. Process-talk, in my view, is something of an historiographical red herring: It tends to make the past sound less chaotic and more organized than it was experienced by historical actors. This is not to say that we shouldn’t engage in process-talk.
In a similar vein, I am attempting to better understand the relationship between history and future studies. Are these not both merely facets of continuing processes, so that the same body of theory should apply equally well looking forward as backwards?