Theory talk:Hiro Nakamura

The 'catastrope' theory is written in a highly personal perspective, rather than a 'third-person perspective' as requested on the Help:Theories page. Would it be possible to have that edited? General Shane 04:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

• I have removed it. But you could of to, remember the whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit. Seclusion 04:52, 16 November 2007 (EST)
  • Well, I wasn't sure if I was being too picky and technical. General Shane 02:55, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Arthur doesn't need physical contact to erase memories?

"Arthur grabbed Hiro's head. He doesn't need physical contact to erase memories."

When was this demonstrated? - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Arthur made Angela forget his assassination plans for Nathan by "telling" her brain to forget it, in Villains. Intuitive Empath 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Wasn't that just telepathy?--Yoshi n1 16:35, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Predestination versus Ontological Paradoxes

I'm assuming that I can speak on the talk page in a more casual tone. If not, someone please put this in the proper POV but keep the core ideas intact. I know there's a few other pages where this explanation might come in handy, feel free to copy it over there.

I'm going to forego trying to explain each paradox and instead provide (somewhat) classic examples of each.

Predestination: Let's say you decided one day to go back and prevent the assassination of Lincoln. So you hop in your time machine and go back to a few minutes before he was killed. You get there and find John Booth right behind Lincoln's box. You lunge for him to try to wrestle the gun from him, but while you're struggling the gun goes off and kills Lincoln. Booth, seizing the opportunity, jumps from the box, claims victory, and goes down in infamy. Your attempt resulted in Lincoln being shot, therefore ensuring that you would go back in time to try and prevent it.

Ontological: You, in an altruistic moment, grab your unabridged Shakespeare and head back in time. You arrive before he wrote his first play and hand him the book with every play he's ever written so he can spend his time getting down with those Ren Faire-looking chicks. He's down with the idea, and publishes each play as his own. The problem is, where did MacBeth (or any of the other plays come from). You had the book because Shakespeare wrote them, but Shakespeare only wrote them because you brought him the book. So the plays of Shakespeare never had a real origin.

• Is there a paradox that explains this situation, where you go back in time to change a certain event, but since you changed the event in the past, you never had a reason for going to change it in the first place?