Talk:Predestination paradox - Revision history

Cewbot: Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix :Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)

2024-11-26T19:28:21Z

Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:28, 26 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=NA\|metaphysics=yes}}

	{{WikiProject ~~Philosophy\|class=Redirect~~\|importance=NA~~\|metaphysics=yes~~}}		{{WikiProject Science Fiction \|importance=NA}}
	{{WikiProject Science Fiction \|class=Redirect \|importance=NA}}
	}}		}}

MalnadachBot: Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)

2021-11-29T05:52:42Z

Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:52, 29 November 2021
Line 146:		Line 146:
	== Huh. DNA. ==		== Huh. DNA. ==

	If you went back and impregnated your great-great-grandmother, your DNA in the present would slowly become more like yourself than yourself. This would be akin to [[Russell's Paradox]]. How can your DNA be more like itself than itself.? This would casue the universe to explode, even if you killed you real great great grandfather. Wait, uh, where is the paradox in that? Anyways, tell me what you think. --[[Image:Homfrogme.PNG\|15px\|Homfrog]]~~<font color="GREEN">~~[[User:Homfrog\|~~Homfrog]]~~<~~/font~~ color><~~sup><font color="ORANGE"~~>[[User talk:Homfrog\|Tell me a story!~~]]</font color>~~</sup>~~<sub><font color="PURPLE">~~[[Special:Contributions/Homfrog\|~~Contribulations]]~~<~~/font~~ color></sub>[[Image:Homfrogme.PNG\|15px\|Homfrog]] 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)		If you went back and impregnated your great-great-grandmother, your DNA in the present would slowly become more like yourself than yourself. This would be akin to [[Russell's Paradox]]. How can your DNA be more like itself than itself.? This would casue the universe to explode, even if you killed you real great great grandfather. Wait, uh, where is the paradox in that? Anyways, tell me what you think. --[[Image:Homfrogme.PNG\|15px\|Homfrog]][[User:Homfrog\|<span style="color:green;">Homfrog</span>]][[User talk:Homfrog\|<sup style="color:orange;">Tell me a story!</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Homfrog\|<sub style="color:purple;">Contribulations</sub>]][[Image:Homfrogme.PNG\|15px\|Homfrog]] 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Hmmmmmm.....well, I think it would cause a paradox because if you went back in time and impregnated your great-great-grandmother, then your great grandparent would be more and more like you and due to the [[DNA]] of your original ancestors having part of the same DNA as your great-great-grandmother, they would be more like you also, and then eventually your parent, that parent's parent (your grandparent) and grandparent's parent would all look more similar to you, but because of the way it all works, it might be possible for all your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents to all have remarkably similar DNA to you. I think there's an extremely small chance for any gene to [[mutate]], but after an infinity of iterations of working this all out, you might be really mutated for the worse and then unable to reproduce (because of death or maybe just [[sterility]]) and therefore not able to initiate the predestination paradox in the first place, making it into a [[grandfather paradox]] or something. Or maybe instead of mutation, your ancestors looking different might cause them to not get together in the first place, thus making you not ever being born. Not sure, probably a million different ways to cause a paradox. I don't think in fact it would make you look more like yourself, in fact, due to you having some of your great-great-grandmother's DNA, you would probably become more and more like your great-great grandmother (but not too similar, because you're great-great-grandmother isn't directly related by DNA to all your relatives).		:Hmmmmmm.....well, I think it would cause a paradox because if you went back in time and impregnated your great-great-grandmother, then your great grandparent would be more and more like you and due to the [[DNA]] of your original ancestors having part of the same DNA as your great-great-grandmother, they would be more like you also, and then eventually your parent, that parent's parent (your grandparent) and grandparent's parent would all look more similar to you, but because of the way it all works, it might be possible for all your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents to all have remarkably similar DNA to you. I think there's an extremely small chance for any gene to [[mutate]], but after an infinity of iterations of working this all out, you might be really mutated for the worse and then unable to reproduce (because of death or maybe just [[sterility]]) and therefore not able to initiate the predestination paradox in the first place, making it into a [[grandfather paradox]] or something. Or maybe instead of mutation, your ancestors looking different might cause them to not get together in the first place, thus making you not ever being born. Not sure, probably a million different ways to cause a paradox. I don't think in fact it would make you look more like yourself, in fact, due to you having some of your great-great-grandmother's DNA, you would probably become more and more like your great-great grandmother (but not too similar, because you're great-great-grandmother isn't directly related by DNA to all your relatives).

Philoserf: Assessment (Redirect/NA): banner shell, Philosophy, Science Fiction, −Time (Rater)

2021-09-27T15:22:56Z

Assessment (Redirect/NA): banner shell, Philosophy, Science Fiction, −Time (Rater)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:22, 27 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=

	{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=start\|metaphysics=yes}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Time~~}}		{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=Redirect\|importance=NA\|metaphysics=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Science Fiction}}		{{WikiProject Science Fiction \|class=Redirect \|importance=NA}}
	}}		}}

180.151.19.191: /* It's not a paradox! */

2016-06-05T17:16:42Z

It's not a paradox!

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:16, 5 June 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==It's not a paradox!==		==It's not a paradox!==
	It may appear as such, but the "Predestination paradox" is not , in physics, really a paradox at all. Philosophically, it contradicts the idea of free will, but even this may be apparent, in as much as it is simply a case of free will not ~~allowing~~ you to break the laws of the universe (for example, if I step off a cliff, I'd rather not fall, but no matter how much I will myself to stay in the air, the basic laws of physics state that I have to fall) [[User:128.232.250.254\|128.232.250.254]] 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)		It may appear as such, but the "Predestination paradox" is not , in physics, really a paradox at all. Philosophically, it contradicts the idea of free will, but even this may be apparent, in as much as it is simply a case of free will not allow you to break the laws of the universe (for example, if I step off a cliff, I'd rather not fall, but no matter how much I will myself to stay in the air, the basic laws of physics state that I have to fall) [[User:128.232.250.254\|128.232.250.254]] 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The paradox comes from the fact that in a causal loop, the events are both causes and effects of each other. [[Causality (physics)\|Causality]] — that a cause precedes an effect — is thus seemingly violated. It might be useful to remember that paradoxes which have solutions can still be called paradoxes ([[Zeno's paradox]], for example). --[[User:Khaosworks\|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks\|contribs]]) 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)		:The paradox comes from the fact that in a causal loop, the events are both causes and effects of each other. [[Causality (physics)\|Causality]] — that a cause precedes an effect — is thus seemingly violated. It might be useful to remember that paradoxes which have solutions can still be called paradoxes ([[Zeno's paradox]], for example). --[[User:Khaosworks\|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks\|contribs]]) 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The 'paradox' comes from the question of 'how did this come to be in the first place'. In any example, if you go straight to the origin of the event you realize there is always going to be an inconsistency. For example, the heart attack instance is nonsense because the man clearly had a heart attack because he was overweight - if he went back and made himself into a fitness fanatic, even if he still had the heart attack, it would have been purely by conincidence and the whole past would have been changed. This clearly doesn't create a closed loop, so it is considered a paradox.		::The 'paradox' comes from the question of 'how did this come to be in the first place'. In any example, if you go straight to the origin of the event you realize there is always going to be an inconsistency. For example, the heart attack instance is nonsense because the man clearly had a heart attack because he was overweight - if he went back and made himself into a fitness fanatic, even if he still had the heart attack, it would have been purely by conincidence and the whole past would have been changed. This clearly doesn't create a closed loop, so it is considered a paradox.

Jwy: /* Clear Examples */ new section

2015-05-31T16:57:34Z

Clear Examples: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:57, 31 May 2015
Line 307:		Line 307:

	Could a more proficient/known wikipedist with knowledge of the Misfits series (current) ending edit the Misfits section accordingly? Unless there was a serious retconning involved, the paradox described in the section went quite differently. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.207.232.227\|87.207.232.227]] ([[User talk:87.207.232.227\|talk]]) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Could a more proficient/known wikipedist with knowledge of the Misfits series (current) ending edit the Misfits section accordingly? Unless there was a serious retconning involved, the paradox described in the section went quite differently. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.207.232.227\|87.207.232.227]] ([[User talk:87.207.232.227\|talk]]) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Clear Examples ==

			The first example (Oedipus), as suggested in one of the discussions above, is a good example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy," but closer to an edge case for a "predestination paradox." The plot would unfold as is if we include the Soothsayer being bribed to say what he does without any knowledge of the future. If we are providing examples, they should be a bit clearer: the "-All You Zombies-" examples should at least lead the list? --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy\|talk]]) 16:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

SineBot: Signing comment by 192.182.153.50 - "/* It's not a paradox! */ Adding in that they are talking about two kinds of paradoxes and that they are both correct."

2015-02-19T20:46:35Z

Signing comment by 192.182.153.50 - "It's not a paradox!: Adding in that they are talking about two kinds of paradoxes and that they are both correct."

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:46, 19 February 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	::No, it's referred to incorrectly as a "paradox" in the literature, which is why actual physicists go out of their way to correct the error. It's really frustrating the way you're trying to rationalize inaccuracy.[[Special:Contributions/76.166.24.51\|76.166.24.51]] ([[User talk:76.166.24.51\|talk]])		::No, it's referred to incorrectly as a "paradox" in the literature, which is why actual physicists go out of their way to correct the error. It's really frustrating the way you're trying to rationalize inaccuracy.[[Special:Contributions/76.166.24.51\|76.166.24.51]] ([[User talk:76.166.24.51\|talk]])

	You're referring specifically to a physical paradox, hence the physics reference. Saying that this is a philosophical paradox doesn't imply that it is a physical one, and so you're both correct, albeit using semantics that aren't precise enough to convey it.		You're referring specifically to a physical paradox, hence the physics reference. Saying that this is a philosophical paradox doesn't imply that it is a physical one, and so you're both correct, albeit using semantics that aren't precise enough to convey it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.182.153.50\|192.182.153.50]] ([[User talk:192.182.153.50\|talk]]) 20:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	'there is no paradox in the "predestination" case, because there is no logical contradiction': If you kindly read the article about [[paradox]], you'll note that "logical contradiction" is not always required, "defies intuition" is another way of acquiring paradoxness. Aside from that, if it is called a paradox by [[WP:RS\|the literature]], then that's what we state. If other [[WP:RS]] disagree, we report that, too. Our own opinions and judgments are unimportant. [[User:Paradoctor\|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor\|talk]]) 20:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)		'there is no paradox in the "predestination" case, because there is no logical contradiction': If you kindly read the article about [[paradox]], you'll note that "logical contradiction" is not always required, "defies intuition" is another way of acquiring paradoxness. Aside from that, if it is called a paradox by [[WP:RS\|the literature]], then that's what we state. If other [[WP:RS]] disagree, we report that, too. Our own opinions and judgments are unimportant. [[User:Paradoctor\|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor\|talk]]) 20:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

192.182.153.50: /* It's not a paradox! */ Adding in that they are talking about two kinds of paradoxes and that they are both correct.

2015-02-19T20:45:27Z

It's not a paradox!: Adding in that they are talking about two kinds of paradoxes and that they are both correct.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:45, 19 February 2015
Line 44:		Line 44:

	::No, it's referred to incorrectly as a "paradox" in the literature, which is why actual physicists go out of their way to correct the error. It's really frustrating the way you're trying to rationalize inaccuracy.[[Special:Contributions/76.166.24.51\|76.166.24.51]] ([[User talk:76.166.24.51\|talk]])		::No, it's referred to incorrectly as a "paradox" in the literature, which is why actual physicists go out of their way to correct the error. It's really frustrating the way you're trying to rationalize inaccuracy.[[Special:Contributions/76.166.24.51\|76.166.24.51]] ([[User talk:76.166.24.51\|talk]])

			You're referring specifically to a physical paradox, hence the physics reference. Saying that this is a philosophical paradox doesn't imply that it is a physical one, and so you're both correct, albeit using semantics that aren't precise enough to convey it.

	'there is no paradox in the "predestination" case, because there is no logical contradiction': If you kindly read the article about [[paradox]], you'll note that "logical contradiction" is not always required, "defies intuition" is another way of acquiring paradoxness. Aside from that, if it is called a paradox by [[WP:RS\|the literature]], then that's what we state. If other [[WP:RS]] disagree, we report that, too. Our own opinions and judgments are unimportant. [[User:Paradoctor\|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor\|talk]]) 20:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)		'there is no paradox in the "predestination" case, because there is no logical contradiction': If you kindly read the article about [[paradox]], you'll note that "logical contradiction" is not always required, "defies intuition" is another way of acquiring paradoxness. Aside from that, if it is called a paradox by [[WP:RS\|the literature]], then that's what we state. If other [[WP:RS]] disagree, we report that, too. Our own opinions and judgments are unimportant. [[User:Paradoctor\|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor\|talk]]) 20:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wi-kiry-lan: /* Change title of article to "Causal loop"? */

2014-08-08T00:16:22Z

Change title of article to "Causal loop"?

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:16, 8 August 2014
Line 299:		Line 299:
	:Redirecting "Causal loop" to this article is a bit like redirecting "Vehicle" to "Model A Ford". A Predestination paradox is a very specific type of causal loop - one involving time travel! A search on [http://scholar.google.com google scholar] of "causal loop" alone (''without'' time travel) turns up over 7,500 articles and papers, several of them very highly cited (e.g., [[Business dynamics]] - cited by 4972).		:Redirecting "Causal loop" to this article is a bit like redirecting "Vehicle" to "Model A Ford". A Predestination paradox is a very specific type of causal loop - one involving time travel! A search on [http://scholar.google.com google scholar] of "causal loop" alone (''without'' time travel) turns up over 7,500 articles and papers, several of them very highly cited (e.g., [[Business dynamics]] - cited by 4972).
	:Renaming this article to "Causal loop" would therefore be inappropriate and confusing. I would suggest a "Causal loop (Disambiguation)" page. --[[User:Trevithj\|Trevithj]] ([[User talk:Trevithj\|talk]]) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)		:Renaming this article to "Causal loop" would therefore be inappropriate and confusing. I would suggest a "Causal loop (Disambiguation)" page. --[[User:Trevithj\|Trevithj]] ([[User talk:Trevithj\|talk]]) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

			Specifically I don't remember ever seeing the term prior to Star Trek DS9: Trials and Tribble-ations aired November 1996. [[User:Wi-kiry-lan\|Wi-kiry-lan]] ([[User talk:Wi-kiry-lan\|talk]]) 00:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

	== Misfits section wrong ==		== Misfits section wrong ==

ChrisGualtieri: Article Class improved from stub using AWB

2013-12-01T02:46:12Z

Article Class improved from stub using AWB

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:46, 1 December 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=		{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=~~stub~~\|metaphysics=yes}}		{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=start\|metaphysics=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Time}}		{{WikiProject Time}}
	{{WikiProject Science Fiction}}		{{WikiProject Science Fiction}}

BattyBot: Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9510)

2013-10-07T07:53:06Z

Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9510)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:53, 7 October 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{~~philosophy~~\|class=stub\|metaphysics=yes}}		{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=stub\|metaphysics=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Time}}		{{WikiProject Time}}
	{{Science Fiction ~~Project~~}}		{{WikiProject Science Fiction}}
			}}

	==Grandfather paradox==		==Grandfather paradox==