Talk:Predestination paradox

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

I'm not sure the "The City on the Edge of Forever" example is actually a predestination paradox. Rather, it is just an example of restoration of the original timeline. As I understand it, had McCoy failed to go back in time, Edith Keeler would have died and events would have unfolded without intervention. McCoy's pressence necessitated Kirk's intervention, however his absence would not have hindered the flow of events as history recorded them. As Kirk's falling in love with her had no bearing on the eventuality of her death (because he exercised some rare self-control), no predestination paradox occurred.

Instead, a better example might be the 'A causes B causes C causes A' ramblings in Voyager's Future's End or Scotty's transparent aluminum rationale in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Galileo 10:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirk and McCoy did change the future, be aware: we're merely led to believe the "important" necessary death was assurred at the end; but the altering of the future (or would it the fulfillment of it?) is likewise assured by the man who vaporized himself with McCoy's phaser. --ChrisK 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to that phaser? If someone else found that phaser, would that not have changed history? --64.12.117.142 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek IV

Would the case with Kirk's glasses as a present count as a Predestination Paradox. I am refering to the scene where Kirk says "And they will be again", to Spock's question "Weren't those a gift from Dr. McCoy.