Talk:Ontological paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.Serendipodous 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Terminator
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
