Skip to main content

movie - Predestination and Bootstrap Paradox?



Can someone please help me understand the difference between Predestination and Bootstrap Paradox by pointing me in the direction of movies that deals with each of them?


For instance, Predestination the movie seems to deal with Predestination Paradox, hence the name.


Can someone point me in the direction of a movie that deals primarily with the Bootstrap Paradox?


I am NOT looking for a list of movies, just looking to understand through an example.



Answer



The two kinds of paradox are extremely closely related, so many times a movie which seems to deal with one actually deals with both. In fact, I've found quite a few places that consider them to be different names for the same thing.


Paradoxes


In a predestination paradox, an event in the past creates a chain of events that leads to some second event in the future, but that second event is ultimately the cause of the first event. This is equivalent to what theoretical physicists would call a "closed time-like loop" (something that is "allowed", though extremely unlikely to be real, according to relativity.) The key here is that the action in the future only happened because the action in the past happened, but the action in the past was explicitly caused by the action in the future.


In a bootstrap paradox, an object (which could be a physical object, or a piece of information) is sent to the past, and the receipt of that object triggers a series of cause/effect, which ultimately leads to a future event whereby the same object is sent back in time. The key here is that the object/information did not come from anywhere. It exists because it always existed. (This kind of paradox is not, as far as I understand, even theoretically possible under relativity, it violates several conservation laws.)


TV Shows



I know that you asked for movies, but really, TV shows are a much bigger pool of information on this stuff, if for no other reason than simple quantity. A good primer on both of these kinds of paradox is Doctor Who, since it involves quite a lot of time travel. An example of each (there are tons more):




  • The highly popular, acclaimed episode Blink contains a bootstrap paradox: The Doctor (stuck in the past) reads a transcript of a conversation into a camera, which he arranges to be embedded on a DVD. A girl in the future watches the DVD and transcribes the conversation, then later gives the transcript to The Doctor, who takes it into the past with him to read.




  • The mini-episodes Time/Space and Time Crash both feature The Doctor giving information to a future version of himself; it's much more explicit in Space.




  • The episode Fires of Pompeii contains a (sort-of) predestination paradox. The Doctor finds himself in Pompeii just before Vesuvius erupts, and spends much of the episode trying to escape. It is later learned that he caused the eruption, in order to prevent a much worse disaster that would have resulted in the destruction of the entire Earth. Had he not done so, at the very least his companion from present-day Earth would never have existed, so he would never had taken her back to Pompeii, etc.





Many other TV Shows that deal with time travel mix the two up; the entire third season of Fringe is a giant bootstrap/predestination paradox:



Peter sent the blueprints for The Machine back into the past, along with some of it's parts, by using the machine that was built from the blueprints he sent into the past.



Movies


As far as movies, it seems to be much harder to find recent examples of this; many time-travel movies these days explicitly avoid these two kinds of paradox by changing the future (Looper, Butterfly Effect, Days of Future Past, etc.) Both of these paradoxes involve a stable timeline -- nothing changes as a result of the time traveler. Most of the examples I found are from previous decades (or based on older books).


For the predestination paradox, other than Predestination, a good example would be:




  • The Time Traveler's Wife: the protagonist travels through time meeting his wife at various stages: She only falls in love with him because he time traveled to meet her as a child, but he only visited her because they were in love in the future, etc.


For the bootstrap paradox, a few that I came up with:




  • The Terminator series (specifically, 1 & 2): The original Terminator was sent back in time by Skynet to kill Sarah Conner; that Terminator is later found by Cyberdine, reverse-engineered, and used as the basis for Skynet. Thus, the technological information needed to build Skynet came from Skynet.




  • Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure: a very small one, but they only know to call Rufus "Rufus" because they hear themselves call him that; he never actually gives his own name.





There's also a lot of implied bootstrap paradoxes in movies, but they require a bit of assumption. For example, in Star Trek IV, Scottie gives an engineer the formula for transparent aluminum. If we assume that engineer patented that formula, and the rest of the world learned it from him, that would count. However, that requires us to reject the possibility that someone else independently discovered that knowledge on their own, which is something that happens all the time in science and math.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...