Talk:Bootstrap paradox/Archive 1

Examples from Fiction
It appears that somehow a TV Tropes article snuck on Wikipedia without anyone noticing. This article needs more physics and less plot points. 194.201.25.22 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it certainly doesn't need to be a list of every ones favourite fiction, I've culled most examples, to me it still has too many, examples are supposed to illustrate a point as an aid to understanding, or draw attention to particularly interesting examples of the article subject, not a list of every example that can be found. Jasonfward (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: which criteria did you use to determine which stayed and which were removed?  Serendi pod ous  15:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I used no standard, I just removed anything more than 3 per type of example. This is not about what might be acceptable as an example, but that there are way too many examples, it is not encyclopaedic to include every valid example, however valid they are, the examples should illustrate, not be exhaustive. Jasonfward (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't how wikipedia works; you can't just cut a page in half. Removal must be on the basis of notability. If you want to establish a notability criterion to remove superfluous examples, then I'm with you, but there has to be a rationale in place.  Serendi pod ous  21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, there are lots of things that are notable as per Wikipedia guidelines, that doesn't for one second mean that they should all be included in Wikipedia, merely that they may be included Jasonfward (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. But selecting which ones go and which ones stay completely at random doesn't help. Obviously all the remaining examples should be notable.  Serendi pod ous  17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there any none notable examples they should just be removed, no questions asked, what remains should be reduced to a sensible number, and frankly 12 examples (as per what I left) is still too many, however in the absence of any great knowledge on the subject myself, I am assuming good faith by previous editors and that all the examples are notable, I am trying to improve the article, but clinging onto the current status quo degrades it. My version, arbiterially edited as it was is an improvement from the current version and there is no reason for you to keep reverting it Jasonfward (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, notability in the mind of a single editor does not necessarily indicate notability in general. On other lists I edit, I established, after some discussion, unique criteria for determining notability. The reason this list is so long is because, other than "It's not a bootstrap paradox", I haven't come up with a unique criterion. I can say which ones I think are notable and which aren't, but that doesn't decide the matter. The only way I can think of doing it is locating and comparing outside references for each and every example and then discarding the ones with the fewest. Which is why I haven't done it.  Serendi pod ous  19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Add general solutions to the paradox section?
The article seems incomplete without generalizable solutions (for example, that traveling to the future and then back to the present creates a 2nd timeline without a loop--for example, a man travels to the future and steals an invention, then brings it back and is famous for it, but then no one comes to steal it from him down the road (and someone else had actually invented it in the original timeline)).173.164.218.92 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge this
A Predestination paradox is often the same thing as an ontological paradox. The list of occurences of either of these in fiction overlap in a lot of places. Therefore I suggest we put all the examples together into the article Predestination paradoxes in fiction, leaving this article with only the description of what an Ontological paradox is, and a few good examples.--Mithcoriel (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Enthalpy Contradiction
According to the Enthalpy Argument, an item in an ontological loop would suffer the effects of wear and age, and would become dysfunctional. For example, a man is trapped in a warehouse with no feasible exits. Suddenly, a silhouette throws a cell phone through a barred window to the man, and disappears. The man uses the cell phone to call for help and is rescued. Later, the man goes back in time to thank the man, only to be standing outside the window by himself. After a realization, he then throws the cell phone through the window and returns to his own time. Theoretically, this loop is sound, but upon consideration of the cell phone, the man never receives a charger for the phone, therefore the phone must eventually run out of battery life and die, thus the man is never saved and creates a grandfather paradox. Although this only applies to physical items, such as keys and cell phones, and not ideas, such as songs and equations, I still believe it is a valid and relevant point, and should be added to the article. Anyone?
 * This is very insightful! Something similar happens in Star Trek II and Star Trek IV, in which McCoy buys a pair of antique glasses for Kirk, who then goes back in time and sells those glasses to a pawn shop. Spock asks "Excuse me. Weren't those a birthday present from Dr. McCoy?" and Kirk replies "And they will be again. That's the beauty of it;" implying an ontological paradox. I've added this example to both Star Trek IV and this article. However, it's certainly possible that the glasses were manufactured at some point, and that Kirk's sale simply creates a second copy of the glasses that exists between 1986 and 2286. &laquo; plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Plushpuffin's analysis of the Star Trek II and IV, but it is possible for it to be a paradox. The way it appears, the glasses are manufactured in the past, then given to Kirk as a present by McCoy, then sold in the past. This creates a second copy, the cracked pair from the future and the ones that will later become Kirk's present. However, as per the dialogue and the way the shop owner acts, it could be a paradox. In order for it to be so, the lens must be replaced at some point between when they are sold in the past and when they are given as a present and must be restored or taken good care of. Additionally, the paradox is possible because of the way the shopkeeper purchases the glasses. He is not actually assessing the glasses real age but just the apparent age, i.e. carbon dating. As such, it is uncertain whether the glasses are stuck in a loop or taken back through time and sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthjarek (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The "man trapped in the warehouse" ages at the same speed as the rest of us, IE: in one second he is one second older. The same for the "silhouette outside the barred window", the "cell phone's battery"; also not mentioned were the other components in the Cell Phone nor the warehouse structure itself (IE: the integrity of the roof, or rusting of the bars). If the basis of this story (supposed proof of the fallacy of this theory) is that the man goes back in time to save himself but can not charge his Cell Phone batteries then perhaps he is some idiot who simply fell through a hole in time and wound up lucky, maybe not. For this to work the man would either need to take the time to attend to the maintenance of his Phone (charge the batteries, buy a new Phone if it is broken, whatever he needs to do) OR the Phone would need to 'reverse it's age' in it's backward time travel (so the Phone would be newer, not older) and thus it would work as well as it did at that particular point in time (assuming that either prior to going backward to a particular time that prior to that time the Phone WAS properly charged OR that the 'battery does not have it's charge travel backwards in time' (the Power Company does not get back the power from your battery since there are no wires connecting it to anything except your Phone)). For the 'idea' of the man to save himself the 'savee' and the 'saver' version of 'the man' (both one and same person) would need to NOT get older, yet 'the saver' version of the man would need to get "smarter" (if even every so slightly) in order to get the idea to save himself; were he confounded (or scared) and ran away he would not save himself and break the loop. So the entire premise of the Story is that either each point works in the favorable way OR it will not work at all (at some point in time). IE: The premise IS that "you can have your cake and eat it too" (very easy to do, just stick your hand back in your mouth) OR "you can NOT" and the story is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.109.124 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A new videogame paradox
Sould we add in the several ontological paradoxes in the game Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)?Unknownlight 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Asimov Story
I used to have at home a copy of Asimov's The End of Eternity, in which the main character, who deals with time travel, and making changes to timelines, is involved in a plot to send a person back in time to help create time travel. (The article here on WP provides a decent synopsis.) Basically, I wonder if this fits the ontological paradox model, in that the person to be sent back is taught the mathematical equations necessary to form the basis of time travel... Umrguy42 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know to what you were referring, so I went back to May 2007 and noticed that The Red Queen's Race was in the article at one point and was later removed. I just added it under the literature section, but since it was removed as a predestination paradox masquerading as an ontological paradox, I have reverted my latest edit to re-remove the reference. &laquo; plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove Heroes reference
I don't think that the Heroes reference is a true ontological paradox anymore. In the episode that occurs 5 years in the future, we find out that Hiro created a timeline of relationships that all the characters had with each other and when they interacted. From this information he figured out that if they save the cheerleader, then Sylar wouldn't have her power and he (Hiro) would be able to kill Sylar. Thus we know where the information came from and it is not an ontological paradox.


 * I agree, and just removed two Heroes examples. Again. It's clear that the show's depiction of time travel allows interaction with alternate futures, without a requirement that someone in the "real" future inspire the same actions. Until we see "Hiro prime" repeat some action previously seen we shouldn't claim an ontological paradox. Westacular 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

futurama
It can't realy be said for sure that the in Roswell That Ends Well in reference to fry is actualy a true paradox ontological paradox in reference to fry's Y chomosome, the boyfriend's name is enos, yet in The Luck of the Fryrish, fry's dad says that the firstborn male in the family is named yancey. this still doesnt contradict the other episodes as he could have received his own X cromisome if he is his own maternal grandfather, and recieved the parternal X chromisome from his mother. just a suggestion, not necessarily correct as i dont totally %100 understand the nature of paradoxes. --Alphamone 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Enis, Fry's "grandfather", could potentially be called by his middle name, or perhaps it's just a nickname. Besides, in The Day the Earth Stood Stupid, the Nibblonians confirmed that he is, in fact, his own grandfather. 65.31.153.163 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes
I could be wrong, but I think I remember the planet of the apes movies containing such a paradox.

Man travels to future->Talking Monkeys Travel back in Man's Ship->Have Talking Monkey Baby that makes "Planet of The Apes"->Man from past shows up->Talking Monkeys take man's ship to past...etc

Am I wrong on this?


 * The way I recall, mankind creates talking apes through genetic engineering after all cats and dogs die out. There was a monkey baby from the future, but it didn't create the talking apes race. It was their guru, but not their ancestor, IIRC.  (It's years since I saw the movies, I might be way off base here) Harry Mudd 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can not be 100% sure of this, but I believe the protagonist of the last two films was Cornelius and Zira's child from "escape"... All grown up.Koolaidman (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Escape, Cornelius and Zira's son (Caesar) appears in the last scene saying "mama", implying that he is the first ape genetically capable of speech, who will lead to an entire subspecies of speaking apes. Conquest shows all the apes (except Caesar) as mute but intelligent animals except for the last scene, in which Caesar's female mate says "no". Thus these two films appear to contradict the timeline of the original Planet of the Apes film, where it is explained that it took hundreds of years from present (1970s) time for apes to develop the intelligence and capacity to speak. A case could be made, however, that they are still consistent with the original film, under the assumption that the nuclear devastation of New York wiped out most of the (normal) humans and allowed ape-only society to advance during the next 2,000 or so years (up to the time of Cornelius and Zira).
 * The last film Battle apparently disregards the timeline from the first film entirely, however, ending with a reconciliation and peaceful coexistence between the apes and humans which lasts for at least another 600 years. This is a fairly blatant contradiction to the original film, and seems to establish an alternate timeline (perhaps created by the time travel in Escape), which is not so easily explained away. | Loadmaster (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A Paradox of The Planet of the Ape Series is that the Time Ship of the first Movie is moved into the future by a external space-time explosion; the Sequel movies shows the earth blowing up is the {impiled} explosion that moves the Time Ship forward while at the same time moving the Time Ship-carrying the apes from the Future-back into the past at the same time! Of course once the apes are in earth's past this starts the train of events in which Apes rule over man...until the time ship bounces ahead to the future.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.158 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ontological vs. Predestination
Some of these supposed ontological paradoxes are predestination paradoxes. The two are easily confused, it must be said. I've just remoed a few predestinies from the list. Serendi pod ous  10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add a description of the distinction between Ontological and Predestination paradoxes? Currently the article only mentions that they are very similar, without clearly distinguishing their differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.178.99 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia?
How does "examples from fiction" equate to "trivia" in this case? Seems a fairly specific category to me. Dingdongalistic 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed the tag. This is not an indiscriminate list and it is not a trivia section. Sometimes a list happens to be the best way to present information. And in the case of concepts like "ontological paradox" which can be difficult to understand, examples are extremely helpful. Also, since OP is basically a literary device (at least until time travel is possible), a list of fictional examples is appropriate for the article. Neither converting the list to prose nor eliminating it would improve the article. However, it could possibly be pared down to include only truly notable examples. —  DIEGO talk 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminator
It is incorrect to draw an equivalence between the Skynet paradox and the consistent loop of Kyle Reese/John Connor, which is a predestination paradox, not a Bootstrap paradoxl as no information or matter 'appears out of thin air'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.206.98 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys missed a big one in The Terminator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not meant to be a complete list, just a few ones to give people ideas about what it means. I think I removed the terminator examples a while back because they were somewhat confusing. Feel free to re-add them. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the Terminator examples are supposition. Let's say Fred Jones created Skynet, Skynet sent Arnie back, his parts were found and Miles Bennet Dyson built Skynet sooner/better.  John Conner, a normal kid grows up to defeat the later/weaker Skynet, one specifically trained defeats the sooner/better Skynet. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Terminator II movie shows Sarah and John Conner destroying all the Terminator components-which would be the basis-for the Skynet future. Logically since the Skynet future can only come about because of the research on the Terminator components from the present-thus with no basis for a future Skynet-John Conner would not exist!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.180 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first Terminator movie is not an example of a branching timeline universe, but rather a consistent, predestined one. It isn't until the final scenes of Terminator 2 that a branching timeline is introduced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.7 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gargoyles
The is a predestination paradox, not an ontological paradox as Xanatos wrote the letter that he sent off himself. It wasn't the same letter.Wild ste (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor does it have to be - it's the *information* that's paradoxical. See the notebook example earlier in the article. Darquis (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, would the Archmage, who saved himself from dying in Gargoyles (and then later on became powerful enough to go back in time via Phoenix Gate and save himself) be an example? Darquis (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. I already added it just before I read your comment. --Mithcoriel (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Example: T-X/Skynet
Examples in fiction > Film

"In the Terminator movies: In Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, the Terminator-X sent by Skynet from the future infects the present Skynet computer, creating the hostile AI that will later invent the T-800 and T-X."

As far as I know, the T-X did not infect Skynet itself but the machines at CRS. Wasn't Skynet the virus before the T-X even arrived in 2003? I don't think that the T-X had any effect on the computer system itself and therefore, I will delete this example for now. Any thoughts/objections? Termin8er850 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetics of being one's own father

 * A man who does not know who his father is goes back in time to find out who his father was. He goes to the bar his mother says she met him, where he meets a woman. After several drinks, he goes to her room with her. When he wakes up he discovers it is his mother he was with, becoming his own father.

Well, that's a tricky one. The man would then be his father's clone. How could this be genetically explained? In the end, he does also have a mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald4244 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless he always contributes the same genetic material (which he would if the event repeated as this paradox requires). Which is highly unlikely, but given that time travel exists as well, not impossible. Darquis (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the presumption would be that the 50% of the genes contributed by his mother would be the same as the 50% of the genes that the son himself already contained but did not contribute in his sperm. This is stretching the imagination slightly. It's more likely the son would travel back and find a a biker or a shamed celebrity or something. Richiau (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A similar discussion is going on in the discussion section of Predestination paradox. Only there it's a person who is his own great-grandfather. Being ones own great-grandfather still allows for some variation along the way, say, his child inherited much more from his great-grandmother than from himself, only for the lineage to later regain the "lost" genes from the next parent. But if you're your own father, then yeah, you and your father are obviously 100% identical.--Mithcoriel (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak examples
There are far too many 'examples' here which don't really inform us any further. I think they should be cut down.

This one in particular makes no sense:


 * A man is locked outside his house because he's lost his keys. Another man approaches him with the keys. When the man enters his house five minutes later, he encounters a time machine which will transport him and his keys back in time five minutes, allowing him to close the loop. [The man would have to take the keys he left inside back in time, otherwise the keys given to him would age by a non-zero amount] (The Bill and Ted Paradox)

There are many times I've been locked out and another man has turned up with some keys. Not sure why that requires a time machine. Richiau (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this a Paradox?

 * A woman goes back in time and takes something from a drawer to use in her present time. After it has fulfilled its use she travels back again and places it in the drawer and then goes back to her own time seconds before her past self appears to take it and use it herself. This is one of the most simple paradoxes.

I do not see how this is a paradox; the item is merely used twice instead of once. 130.71.243.161 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a paradox because without going back to replace the item, it is never there in the first place - when the woman replaces the item in the past (Call this point A) it occurs before she takes it in the past (point B). So when she originally leaves to get it (point C), without her later leaving to put it back (D), it never would be there to take.  Thus it has no origin, making it an Ontological paradox.  Darquis (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a paradox. I feel very strongly that it should be deleted. She does not need to travel back to replace it so that it will be there the first time she travels back. It is there for whatever reason it was there in the original timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.45.128 (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, it just needs to be worded better. The point is that the above example gives the reason, which is that she put it there to form a loop.  DonQuixote (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a paradox, but it possibly need rewording. Using Darquis's references above, the item only exists between points A and B, and then between points C and D (before being taken back to point A again). The item is never created or destroyed - therefore an ontological paradox. However, the description in the article does beg the question - how did the woman at time C know the item would be in the drawer at time B? (given that the item has only so far existed in the brief time between A and B, and during that time was hidden away in a drawer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.208.163 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Back to the Future
Since the timelines in BTTF are not closed-- the "future" Marty returns to is not the same one which he left-- these are not true Paradoxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherS (talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Chuck Berry clearly created the song. There is a source of the song. When Marty originally left from 1985, he brought with him a song that Chuck wrote on his own, not a song Chuck wrote after Marty played Johnny B. Goode to him. Thus there is no paradox. Removed. 72.79.202.131 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek 4
''Kirk's sale of his antique glasses is a classic example of an ontological paradox. It is given to him by Doctor McCoy as a birthday present in Star Trek II, then sold by Kirk in the past in Star Trek IV. The glasses thus have no manufacturer or origin, and exist only because of the causal loop.''


 * How is this a loop? Where is the proof that this pair of glasses is in a loop at all? It could be existing in two places at once during the period from when Kirk arrives in San Fran to when Kirk avoids the Probe. If they exist side by side and McCoy gives Kirk the pair of glasses that didn't go back in time, there is no loop and no paradox. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I thought when I saw the movie. During the interval between the present (1980s) and the future (2200s), the glasses exist as two distinct objects, the first (original) version which were manufactured at some point prior to the present time (perhaps the mid-1800s); and the second version brought back from the future by Kirk. The second version of the glasses is about 400 years older than the first version, but they both exist in the same timeline for about 200 years, at the same time but in two different locations and with two different ages. (In fact, the older version has a cracked lens, IIRC.) | Loadmaster (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Star Trek (2009)
Since all events taking place after the appearence of Nero and the Romulans in 2233 onward are explained as happening in an alternate universe from the one Nero left. With the explanation of an alternate universe, it is not an Ontological example.

The example that was of Spock Prime giving a formula to Montgomery Scott allowing him to transport people onto a ship in warp flight. Spock Prime explains that it was Montgomery Scott himself that discovered the formula in his timeline/universe. Tzfat Mystic (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Life on Mars
''In similar scenes in both episode 6.2 of Life on Mars and "Allison from Palmdale" of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the pregnant mothers of Sam Tyler's future girlfriend, Maya Roy, and Cameron Phillips' future flesh pattern, Allison Young each decide upon her daughter's name following a conversation with Sam or Cameron, respectively, in which the time traveller mentions the name. The unborn foetus thus provides her own name to herself through Sam or Cameron, and it is never originally created. Sydney Fields similarly names herself through time-traveler Derek Reese in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episode, "Alpine Fields"; unlike the other two examples in which the pregant mothers are unaware of the time-traveler's knowledge of the future, Sydney's natural mother and half-sister/adoptive mother know who Derek is and what Sydney will do in the future.''

Why is Life on Mars here? It's a hallucination during Sam's coma, and involves no time travel whatsoever. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who
Isn't Doctor Who every sort of paradox, one after another, or all at the same time, depending on episode? IT is a time travel TV series, afterall. 12:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.196.229 (talk)

Andromeda Strain
''In the 2008 television miniseries The Andromeda Strain, the aforementioned disease is sent back in time via a wormhole by the citizens of future Earth, who cannot stop the disease because a required bacterium has gone extinct and only exists in the past. Scientists in the past manage to utilize this bacteria and kill the virus, but a single sample is saved and stored in the International Space Station at the series' end. It is implied that this sample is the cause of a viral outbreak on the future Earth, causing its citizens to once again send the virus back and hope that it can be destroyed in the past. This creates a further paradox due to the fact that the disease seems to have no origin and only exists in the past because it was sent from the future, whose citizens kept a sample from the past and then sent it back again, creating a never-ending loop.''

This is not a given. The future people could have matched an unknown disease against a sample in storage, and figured out that they matched. The ontological paradox would then be the ID# (the symbol itself could be preexisting, thus not a creation of the loop). Even then, the ID# could just have been assigned, and the assigner not assigning it that number because it was sent back with that number... so it would then only be the knowledge of such a disease, and its cure. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost
The series Lost has had several ontological paradoxes, especially in the two most recent season. It comes as a shock to me that none of these have been listed as examples. Here are two examples from the new season:

While traveling in time, the character John Locke stumbles upon an encampment belonging to the Others, a group of people inhabiting the island. He speaks to one of them, Richard Alpert, and informs Richard that he holds authority over the rest of them because their spiritual leader, Jacob, has named John the physical leader of the Others. When Richard does not believe John, John asks what year they are in. When he discovers that they are in the year 1954, just two years before John Locke's birth, John tells Richard to seek him out as an infant. Upon finding John Locke several years later, Richard begins a cycle that ultimately leads to John Locke being named leader of the Others. However, John Locke never would have spoken to Richard in the year 1954 if he had not been named their leader in the first place. (5.03 Jughead)

Two scientists sent to the island for research purposes are caught in a series of time skips. The first, Charlotte Lewis, is on the verge of death and consequently shares a great deal of information with the second, Daniel Faraday. Charlotte explains that she was born on the island, but left with her mother during her teenage years. Ever since, her mother had denied the existence of the island, prompting Charlotte to devote her entire life to finding the island. Charlotte also explains how as a child, she had met a stranger in the woods who had told her to leave the island and never return to it, as this would bring imminent death. Before she dies, she tells Daniel that he was the stranger in the woods. Although this plot has not been resolved and the loop remains unsealed, the dialogue between Charlotte and Daniel implies that Daniel will be influenced by Charlotte's dying words to find her as a child and tell her to leave the island, thus completing the paradox. (5.05 This Place is Death) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.14.227 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: the "Follow the Leader" reference, I fail to see how "the act of knowing who to give the compass to is a paradox as well." I think this should be removed. Tobetheman (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't directly about the two examples listed here, but about the one from Lost in the article, "In Lost (season 5), Richard Alpert in 2007 gives John Locke a compass asking John to return it when they next meet. In 1954, John Locke returns the compass. The compass has no origin." This isn't a paradox, is it? In order for it to be a loop, Locke's actions somehow have to cause Alpert to give him the compass in the first place. Giving it to him in the past doesn't necessarily do that. I haven't watched that episode in awhile, but with just this information it isn't clear that Richard Alpert's original decision to give Locke the compass with those instructions was influenced by Locke having already "returned" it to him in 1954. Now, it does make you wonder what other purpose Alpert would have for telling Locke to "return it the next time you see me", if not to establish this loop, but there may well be something - this is Lost, after all. It may be likely enough to deserve a mention, but some more information needs to be added, because without that closed loop it isn't an Ontological paradox, and as it stands I don't believe the article makes it clear that the loop is (probably) closed. Hopefully someone with more ready access to the episode can add another sentence or two explaining any further evidence that this is, actually, a loop.129.171.233.77 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

End of the Paradox
In that first section of "Possible solutions for the Ontological paradox," should a sheer collapse of the paradox be mentioned? That is, the item in question deteriorates so as it cannot fulfill its function in time, so the paradox totally collapses, having never happened in the first place. I've always seen that as one reason (out of many, of course) we never observe paradoxes happening, since they tend to collapse, and "fall out" of the timeline. --Gaeamil (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "collapses"? What do you mean "deteriorates"?  They don't mean anything since paradoxes aren't physical entities but thought experiments that point to errors in logic. DonQuixote (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well usually the paradox involves a physical object, or sometimes information. Since it's the same physical object moving in a loop, it must deteriorate over time, which could affect the loop and eventually cause it to stop and fall out of the timeline. For example, a man sees a key on the ground because it shines in the sun, picks it up, goes back in time (hastily constructed example - just making a point), drops the key, then goes back to the future and his past self picks it up in order to take it back in time again. Over time the key might rust and lose it shine, meaning that the man would not notice it and never pick it up. Even if it took several billion cycles, no object can stay in the same condition forever and eventually will change. Thus, we will never see the paradox in action as eventually the object MUST deteriorate.
 * You can say that they are just thought experiments, but thought experiments still relate to real-life situations. -- 17:40, 24 March 2009 (AEST [too lazy to work out UTC]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.50.38 (talk)
 * Thought experiments relate to real-life situations only if they make sense. If they don't make sense then the paradox itself points to a flaw in logic in the argument.  The above example with the key illustrates that the paradox (an object with no beginning or end) cannot be real since nothing can last forever.  Basically what this means is that, although a closed, time-like loop is possible, it doesn't make sense for a physical object to only traverse such a loop (it's got to do it like a roller coaster loop) because it results in a paradox. See also Twin paradox and Ladder paradox.  DonQuixote (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Human ontological paradox
There is a lack of a Ontological paradox analogy including a person but I have found one

"A man awakes with a sore head in an old factory, he has no memories of his life or how he got there. In front of him is a time machine. He gets in and travels back a few years, when he arrives in the past the time machine breaks. He spends years fixing it in the same factory, one day he is finally done but a brick falls from the roof and knocks him out, he awakes with no memories once again, he climes into the strange machine and travels back to the same year as before, the machine breaks when he arrives and he decides to fix it again" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.43.183 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What an ontological paradox is and is not
There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of an ontological paradox. Confusing it with the predestination paradox is understandable, but recent additions have included alternate timelines, which are definitely not related to ontological paradoxes. Indeed they refute them, because they provide an ultimate origin for the item/information being discussed, ie an alternate reality.  Serendi pod ous  17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ontology of Information?
I'm a little puzzled as to why circular chains of causation involving only the transmission of information fall under the heading of Ontological paradox. Surely propositions - those aspects of information which we take to be existent in the world - do not move with bearers of thought, and it is simply our awareness of those propositions that is paradoxical? The utterances we're making in the past are true by virtue of something in the past world that precedes our arrival in it - we're not forming brand new truths, but simply new psychological events.

So the Paradoxical being, then, is the Mental State of being aware of a particular fact as being true. But then it's no paradox, because it's still the past self that does the mental effort to grasp the truth of the fact in question. Certainly, he is facilitated in doing so by his future self, but only to the extent to which his past self grasps the fact from the world and claims it as his own knowledge. Myu (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Is the Song of Storms an Ontological Paradox?
Within the game the player encounters one character, a man in a windmill, both as young Link and adult Link. While as young Link the man in the windmill is cheerful and greets you graciously. He remarks that the windmill's machinery is so peaceful that it inspires his music playing. When you travel forward in time and become adult Link later in the game the man is visibly upset and greats you with great irritation. Apparently, years ago someone had played a certain song within the windmill which sped up the machinery and interfered with his inspiration. (It also drained the well of the village that the windmill is located in, granting the player access to a vital area that you need to explore in order to finish the game. See where I'm going with this?) After conversing with this man he teaches you a song, the Song of Storms. Immediately after a storm erupts within the windmill which speeds up the machinery and angers the man, to the point that he exclaims: "You played that song again, didn't you?!"

So, later in the game as required you travel back in time, become young Link again, and visit the cheerful man in the windmill. Playing the song to him a storm appears within, speeding up the machinery, destroying the peaceful musical inspiration thereof, draining the well, and pissing him off. To the point that he accosts you in the future before playing you the same song, which you then use back in the past to complete a puzzle and advance in the game.

Isn't this a proper example of an ontological paradox since the song has no true origin itself? Since it was never composed by anyone and can only be learned in the future from the same man you played it to and angered with in the past. 7 February, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.16.140 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a valid example. The only strange thing is that link becomes his former self instead of regular time travel where he would be his aged self. This means only his mind went back in time.69.226.97.31 (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the origin of the word "Pokémon" one of these?
In Pokémon: Arceus and the Jewel of Life, Ash Ketchum and his friends travel to the past. In the past, Pokémon are known as "magical creatures." Ash then remarks that he calls them Pokémon in the future. Given that there is no evidence that the word was invented by Ash, should this be added to the article? If so, should it be in Film or Television? (I'll need a copy of the original Japanese version to figure out whether this is dub-exclusive.) WaWeegee (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should.69.226.97.31 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Video Games section
Does Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time fit in here too. Mario and Luigi went back time to fight the shroobs with Baby Mario and Luigi and then Baby Mario and Luigi grew up and teleported back and etc... Sixeightyseventyone —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

Same thing with Yoshi's Island DS. April 11 2010, 8:46 (CST)

The example of The Force Unleashed II doesn't seem to fit, as that flashback was due to the memories of the original Starkiller and not as a result of time travel. Also the spelling is horrendous. 85.178.6.238 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim powers' The Anubis Gates

 * In Tim Powers' The Anubis Gates, Brendan Doyle is a twentieth century English scholar studying the work of early nineteenth century poet William Ashbless whose most famous poem is called "the 12th hours of the night". Doyle goes back to nineteenth century England and hoping to meet Ashbless, he goes to the pub where Ashbless wrote "the 12th hours of the night" on the night where Ashbless allegedly wrote the poem. Ashbless does not show up and out of frustration, Doyle writes on a piece of paper the text of "the 12th hours" that he knows by heart. It is later revealed that he is Richard Ashbless. Hence, nobody wrote "the 12th hours of the night", nor any of Ashbless' works, since Doyle merely transcribed it from memory.

-Bolded part, is this an error? Wouldn't it later be revealed that he was William Ashbless, not Richard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.188.245.154 (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The second Starbuck in BSG (2005)
I think there's evidence in BSG that the "Starbuck" who appears at the end of the third season is an ontological paradox. We never find out where this Starbuck (or her shiny new Viper) comes from, although she have memories of being on Earth (the green, leafy one), which seem to be from the future (the end of season 4). After she arrives on Earth at the end of season 4, she vanishes. Did she travel back in time to the end of season 3? If so, she would be a classic sci-fi ontological paradox. Scientivore (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminator
The bootstrap paradox does not apply in the example used on the page. In the example it states that the remains of the original Terminator sent back are responsible for the construction of Skynet. This is not how the origins of Skynet are explained in T2. The parts of the T-800 from the first film serve to advance Skynet's technology much further than in the future of the original, which is why the second one sent back is a T-1000. T-1000s didn't exist in the future of the first film, or else Skynet would've sent one.

A better example of a bootstrap paradox that applies to the Terminator franchise is Kyle Reese impregnating Sarah Connor to create the leader of the revolution that sends him back in time in the first place. Anyone else in favor of a change to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.157.218 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't a bootstrap paradox; it's a predestination paradox.  Serendi pod ous  10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

river song example should be removed
The example with the name "melody" that came from nowhere is clearly an example from fiction and should be removed from the example section. As a bare example, who cares if the women named herself "river song" later on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.194.53 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  Serendi pod ous  18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "An example from fiction" as opposed to...?

Article title
I object to the use of "Bootstrap paradox" for the title of this article. "Ontological paradox" is the formal or scientific name and since such a name exists it should be used for the article title rather than a colloquial name. Reccommend the title "Bootstrap paradox" be a redirect to "Ontological paradox", instead of vice versa which is the present case. ObiWanBillKenobi (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See the deletion discussion above for the decision to change the title.  Serendi pod ous  04:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of "sometimes referred to"?
This paradox is also known as the Free Lunch Paradox, due to the fact that you're basically handing yourself your own future. By doing the work in the future, the past you (whether aware of the cause or not) has a metaphorical free lunch haha. Because numerous people refer to it as that and don't know the real name, do you guys think it possible or necessary to include maybe a "sometimes referred to as..."? If not, no worries, but I think it's something that should be reflected on. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Find WP:RS citations for this claim and it can be included. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Involving People
The example of being your own father should be removed or corrected, because it is genetically impossible. If one would travel back in time and have intercourse with his own mother, the born child would have different genetics than one self. A child gets 50% of each parents' genes. So the child of the time traveller would only share 75% of genes with one's self. This makes it impossible to be your own father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.185.80.5 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible, assuming that you passed ONLY your paternal DNA to your "child".  Serendi pod ous  08:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * lol, as if time travel is possible itself, but we have many articles dedicated to it here on Wikipedia. But anyhow, since we are talking about you going back and impregnating your own mother and her subsequently and consequently giving birth to you, it would be you that travels back and impregnates her and of course it's impossible.  As is, again, the whole subject of time travel. Jasonfward (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The example of Philip J. Fry should be removed or corrected. He is his own grandfather, not his own father. Also, the statement that his ancestry (or that of other examples of the bootstrap paradox) is infinite is quite questionable: the paradox actually limits their ancestry, since from one side of the family there is only one "ancestor" (or in Fry's case, two). In fact, it can be argued that unless there is a loop involved, EVERYONE's ancestry tends to infinity. Bernatel (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal. On the aside about ancestry, given that there are a (possibly large) finite number of ancestors, I don't think it's true that ancestry tends to infinity for anyone, but I agree with the point - a circle is not infinitely long just because it ends in the same place it begins. 0x0077BE (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OP, I agree that having a child who is exactly like you genetically is very very unlikely, but it isn't logically impossible as far as the paradox goes. Since we are speaking hypothetically here, "unlikely" just doesn't cut it. If a person were to happen discover the secrets of time travel, go back in time and impregnate his mother with just the right genetic data that would produce him later on, then technically he would be his own father and son.99.234.159.224 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad Wolf?
Wouldn't the whole "Bad Wolf" phenomenon from the 2005 relaunch Doctor Who series be cited under the fiction section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.50.97 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)