Talk:Bootstrap paradox

Example involving physical objects
Isn't this actually an example for the predestination paradox rather than the bootstrap paradox, since the origin of the key is clear? There is no information with unclear origin generated in this example. Compare it to the example about the person fathering themselves, in which the genetic material has no origin. 84.132.127.122 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere in Time and the Pocketwatch
Is there still an ontological paradox if the pocket watch was made prior to 1912? For example if the watch was made in 1908, it could bounce between 1912 and 1972 ad infinitum while sidestepping the paradox of its manufacture. This of course does not take into account material decay, which is where my reasoning here may admittedly be flawed. Tpkatsa (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar
The entire premise of the movie Interstellar hinges on this paradox. I think it should be included in the article. Amnion (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And this article just ruined interstellar for me, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.144.126 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a bootstrap paradox; it's a predestination paradox. While the future is indeed creating itself, nothing in the movie has no origin.  Serendi pod ous  20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're assuming the paradox works on information and not just items then yes it is a bootstrap paradox. Humanity's future sent back the quantum data necessary to complete the equation allowing them to harness gravity in order to escape earth. Without that information humanity would have never evolved to send the information.199.46.200.231 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But humanity didn't create that information; that information was always there; all humanity did was give itself the means to find it.  Serendi pod ous  00:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What? They created the necessary quantum data to send back to TARS. If I need the answer 42 to escape a prison and in the future send information back in time to myself saying 42, I didn't create the number 42 but I created the message that told me that number. Unless you're arguing philosophically that nothing is ever created just accessed which has no place here.199.46.200.232 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No they didn't create the data; the data were there in the black hole, and in every other black hole. They just sent the black hole back in time.  Serendi pod ous  01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguably not a Paradox
A paradox is something which is self-contradictory. This doesn't fit. It does break causality (which we assume but has not been proven) and likely precludes free will. TBIT & killing your own grandpa = paradox. TBIT & introducing grandpa to grandma !=paradox 68.53.110.230 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Overlap with predestination paradox
Bootstrap paradox has considerable overlap with predestination paradox: One deals with information and the other deals with events, but unless we're dealing with metaphysics then both information and events are carried through physical means and cannot be directly distinguished.
 * both involve predestination or events with no independent origin or self-causality
 * both involve time travel or a self-fulfilling prophecy

for these reasons, and because both articles suffer from very similar example farms, I suggest that these articles be merged into bootstrap paradox, mainly because the term predestination paradox seems not to have widespread use. IsaacAA (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The predestination paradox has been used since Oedipus Rex 2500 years ago. It is FAR more often used than the bootstrap paradox.  Serendi pod ous  09:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is covered in self-fulfilling prophecy, as a philosophical argument or a plot device in fiction (without citations, I might add). The predestination paradox article was conceived as a similar example-farm for fictional time travel stories. The term itself seems to be restricted to Star Trek. Temporal causal loops on the other hand are explored in philosophy, game theory, and physics, and in this sense the predestination paradox is no different than the bootstrap paradox except by name. Since there's actually serious studies about this subject, I think they deserve a serious article, and not just example farms. By merging these articles they'd have a better chance of receiving actual citations and not just act as a dumping ground for non-notable non-cited examples. IsaacAA (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the title "bootstrap paradox" is too restricting and maybe the merged article could be titled "Causal loops in time travel" since this encompasses both the bootstrap paradox . IsaacAA (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That would probably constitute OR without citation. Citation is the real issue with all these articles anyway, but given how tedious these pages are to cite, I don't see a citation drive any time soon.  Serendi pod ous  12:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to make a bold edit and merge both articles into causal loop because of the poor quality of the citations in bootstrap paradox and the lack of citations for the title "predestination paradox". IsaacAA (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)