The Bootstrap Paradox, Explained

8888

5:06 hawking? The one who went to eps Island? Yeah phuck him and his wheelchair, wish it lost power a lot sooner

In no moment you weren't nor in any moment you will be because you always are.

This video is a bit misleading. There are many problems one can point to with the Albert Einstein paradox example (e.g., there would be birth records of such a person having existed, etc.) Regarding the problem with the second law of thermodynamics, if one is talking about a physical object the argument can be valid, e.g., the object ages. (Although there are conceivable ways of getting out of this problem as well.) However, a cleaner example of the bootstrap paradox that does not have this problem is the following. Imagine a mathematician who memorizes a proof of some famous theorem in mathematics, after reading it in a mathematics textbook. . He then travels back in time and tells the proof to the mathematician who is credited with originally discovering it, and then returns to the future. The past mathematician then publishes the work as his own and is subsequently credited with it. The bootstrap paradox in this case: where did the information, i.e., the proof, come from? The future mathematician got the proof from a book, the past mathematician got it from the future mathematician, who got it from a book, and round and round. Notice that this circumvents the problem with the second law because no physical object makes the loop, only the information.

The problem with this time loop paradox is that it fails for the same reasons that the "bouning universe" theory does (that the universe expanded, stopped, collapsed to expand again, ad infinitum), proposed by far too many physicists. In that, the universe supposedly existed infinitely back and is open ended in the here and now so the infinite line traverses backwards from here, the context in which we ponder it. Of course we cannot go back to the other end of this line because there isnt one so there can be no means of consideration in the forward direction, that by which it is supposed to have extended.

Consider…if we were to ignore that this line of iterations of the universe has no beginning end, to travel along its length toward the future, we would have never gotten here, ever. There is also no means by which this line of iterations of the universe could have been populated in the forward direciton. It would have to have been populated backwards, destroying the sequence of the theory, causing it to fail in this aspect as well.

This also applies to the time loop in the video, being the means by which it also fails. In the video the man would have to have been going back in time to leave himself the book eternally. The progression of existence would then become stuck in that loop. Time could not have moved forward. Additionally, there could be no book for it would have had no author, no research done to generate its content. That this loop defies the cause and effect nature of such progressions, it would have made the book's existence impossible. The book's existence would merely have been "suppposed". Given the above, i.e., that time would have been stuck in this loop would have defied all the laws of physics by which the time machine and its effects were governed, i.e., the snake eating its tail.

This is a ridiculous notion, rather sophomoric in fact. There is no such thing as infinity within the context of materiality. This is why pairing the concept with those of materiality never works and can produce only contradictions. Materiality or existence is governed by contraints in that all that can and does exist must by definition be finite, delieable and quantifiable, applicable to no aspects of infinity.

This is not a paradox because it is materially impossible. The book could not have existed were it not first authored which eliminates that which is the paradoxical function.

What do you think?

A > B > C > A > B > C > A > B > C > ♾️

Always that order, A is the cause, B is the effect, C is the outcome.

A linear timeline has to have played out for an infinite loop to occur.

It's always a timetraveller gets to C point to go back to A.

How do you explain all the pictures and stuff we have of him younger?

A time traveler receives a lump of uranium from himself in the future. He will send this same lump back in time to himself. How much does it weigh?

"So there's this man. He has a time machine. Up and down history he goes, zip zip zip zip zip, getting into scrapes. Another thing he has is a passion for the works of Ludwig van Beethoven. And one day he thinks, "What's the point of having a time machine if you don't get to meet your heroes?" So off he goes to 18th-century Germany. But he can't find Beethoven anywhere. No-one's heard of him, not even his family have any idea who the time traveler is talking about. Beethoven literally doesn't exist. This didn't happen, by the way. I've met Beethoven. Nice chap. Very intense. Loved an arm-wrestle. No, this is called "The Bootstrap Paradox". Google it. The time traveler panics, he can't bear the thought of a world without the music of Beethoven. Luckily he'd brought all his Beethoven sheet music for Ludwig to sign. So he copies out all the concertos and the symphonies and he gets them published. He becomes Beethoven. And history continues with barely a feather ruffled. But my question is, Who put those notes and phrases together? Who really composed Beethoven's 5th?"

Or we messed up badly in the future and they staired history in another way

The bootstrap paradox is against free will, but at the same time, is time travel really possible?

Almost a word for word rip-off of Smart by Design's video

This channel is pure gold

Kang the Conqueror origin story

In my opinion, the bootstrap paradox does not "make the time-traveler into always-have-been Einstein". Because then he has to be the kid-Einstein upto dead-Einstein. The whole biography/history of Einstein is not the same person if the paradox is correct. It is just a brain-teaser, quite attractive, somehow a distraction.

i think we can only see the past .Not go in the past . Similarly we can go in the future but can't see it .

Best example of the bootstrap paradox is which came first…the chicken or the egg?