Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap paradox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:07, 7 October 2021

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. L Faraone 23:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap paradox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note. I've moved the article from the old title Ontological paradox to a new title Bootstrap paradox. --Lambiam 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel knows that this is not a serious problem discussed in any depth anywhere. No scholarly reference could be found, and this article is purportedly written about a scholarly subject. That's the challenge for someone who wants to keep this article afloat. Godsoflogic (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel (including people such as Michael Lockwood) would know that the real problem with this article is simply its name, and that the name used in the literature is information paradox/knowledge paradox (more rarely bootstrap paradox). Anyone who was experienced with MediaWiki, furthermore, would know that simple exercise of the page move tool and the editing tool can fix this problem, deletion tool not required. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I have not read this article sufficiently closely or have mistaken it for something else. I thought that the article purports to be on a different problem than the information paradox-one that deals with material objects instead of information. I agree that the information problem is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsoflogic (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about the "seriousness" of this problem, but it appears notable in fiction as is seen by the extensive list of examples here. Maybe rename to List of fictional portrayals of time travel paradoxes or something.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that last. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is most definitely not the way to go, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge/move to information paradox or some list of paradoxes related to time travel. I think paradoxes in general are interesting enough to warrant a mention and a short explanation on wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Can be found in the physics as well as the popular literature, e.g. Krasnikov, S. (2002). "Time travel paradox". Physical Review D. 65. arXiv:gr-qc/0109029. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65f4013K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.064013., Päs, H.; Pakvasa, S.; Dent, J.; Weiler, T. (2009). "Closed timelike curves in asymmetrically warped brane universes". Phys Rev D. 80 (4): 044008. arXiv:gr-qc/0603045. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d4008P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044008., Dyson, L. (2004). "Chronology Protection in String Theory". Journal of High Energy Physics. 2004 (3): 024. arXiv:hep-th/0302052. Bibcode:2004JHEP...03..024D. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/03/024., http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/2058/1/dissertation.pdf, Toomey, David M. (2007). The new time travelers: a journey to the frontiers of physics. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 259. ISBN 0-393-06013-6., Matt Visser (1995). Lorentzian wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking. New York: American Institute of Physics. p. 213. ISBN 1-56396-394-9., George Musser (2008). The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory (Complete Idiot's Guide to). Indianapolis, IN: Alpha. p. 131. ISBN 1-59257-702-4. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable topic. --Monterey Bay (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
-The result was    '''keep'''. '''[[User:LFaraone|L]]<font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:LFaraone|Faraone]]</font>''' 23:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
+The result was    '''keep'''. '''[[User:LFaraone|L]][[User talk:LFaraone|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Faraone</span>]]''' 23:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 ===[[Bootstrap paradox]]===
 {{clear right}}{{search for|knowledge paradox}}{{clear right}}{{search for|information paradox}}{{clear right}}{{search for|bootstrap paradox}}