Temporal paradox
theoretical paradox resulting from time travel

A temporal paradox, time paradox, or time travel paradox, is an apparent or actual contradiction associated with the idea of time travel or other foreknowledge of the future. Temporal paradoxes arise from circumstances involving hypothetical time travel to the past. They are often employed to demonstrate the impossibility of time travel. Temporal paradoxes fall into three broad groups: bootstrap paradoxes, consistency paradoxes, and free will causality paradoxes exemplified by the Newcomb paradox.
Causal loop
A causal loop, also known as a bootstrap paradox, information loop, information paradox, or ontological paradox, occurs when any event, such as an action, information, an object, or a person, ultimately causes itself, as a consequence of either retrocausality or time travel. A causal loop appears to violate causality by allowing future events to influence the past and cause themselves. This is sometimes called "bootstrapping", which derives from the idiom "pull oneself up by one's bootstraps."
Backward time travel would allow information, people, or objects whose histories seem to "come from nowhere". Such causally looped events then exist in spacetime, but their origin cannot be determined. The notion of objects or information that are "self-existing" in this way is often viewed as paradoxical. Sergey Krasnikov writes that both paradoxes, either information or an object looping through time, are the same; the primary apparent paradox is a physical system evolving into a state in a way that is not governed by its laws.
“Temporal paradox” enters the record as theoretical paradox resulting from time travel. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Temporal, paradox and theoretical can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Temporal paradox” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Temporal, paradox and theoretical provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q33447. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Temporal paradox”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Temporal paradox primary sources, Temporal paradox archive and Temporal research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Temporal paradox”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Temporal paradox” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.