A Consistency Paradox Regarding Unconditional Life-Acceptance

[DISCLAIMER]

Defining Terms

When providing psychoeducational lessons on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), it’s often necessary to define terms. For instance, “bad” is defined as failing to reach an acceptable standard. Alternatively, “good” is defined as being of a favorable character or tendency.

Similarly, that which is “right” is defined as being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper. “Wrong” is an injurious, unfair, or unjust act: action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.

Likewise, a “moral” is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. As such, morals generally relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.

An “ethic” is a set of moral principles, especially those relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or displeasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics – based on morals – are the social rules by which we pledge to live.

As well, specifically related to REBT, rational thinking is in accordance with both logic and reason. Here, “logic” is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and “reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification.

Regarding this blogpost, it’s worth drawing a distinction between dilemmas and paradoxes. A “dilemma” is a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice. A “paradox” is defined as a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.

REBT

Now, I’ll provide context on REBT. First, REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and you Believe an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s your unfavorable assumption, not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence.

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive philosophies of life in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Whereas rigid beliefs cause self-disturbance, flexible beliefs result in an un-disturbed condition.

Second, REBT uses unconditional acceptance (UA) to relieve self-induced suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance (USA), unconditional other-acceptance (UOA), and unconditional life-acceptance (ULA).

Whereas the ABC model is a scientific approach to wellness, UA serves as a philosophical method for un-disturbing yourself. I view the former as an abortive approach to disturbance and the latter as a preventative method. Of course, not all REBT practitioners use the same style as I.

With my approach to REBT, I incorporate author Stephen Covey’s concepts regarding the circles of control, influence, and concern, as well as an area of no concern. UA maps onto the circle of control (USA), circle of influence (UOA), and circle of concern and area of no concern (ULA).

The circle of control encompasses only oneself, the circle of influence encapsulates elements which may be subject to one’s sway, the circle of concern engrosses most matters one can imagine, and the area of no concern relates to all content which isn’t yet imagined.

A Thought Experiment

According to one source:

Killing baby Hitler is a thought experiment in ethics and theoretical physics which poses the question of using time travel to assassinate an infant Adolf Hitler. It presents an ethical dilemma in both the action and its consequences, as well as a temporal paradox in the logical consistency of time […]

Ethical debates on the problem of killing baby Hitler can demonstrate the outlook of various moral philosophies: utilitarianism holds that killing baby Hitler is justified, as the potential benefits outweigh the potential costs; deontology holds that killing baby Hitler is unjustified, as infanticide is always wrong; and consequentialism may question what the consequences of killing baby Hitler might be, holding that the unforeseen future consequences of such an act make it difficult to judge its morality. It is also used to raise the question of nature versus nurture, whether changing the society that baby Hitler grew up in might be preferable to killing baby Hitler.

Metaphysical debates about the possibility of killing baby Hitler have been used to discuss different philosophies of time: the B-theory of time considers killing baby Hitler to be impossible due to its inherent temporal paradox, while theories of multiple time dimensions leave room for the past to be changed by killing baby Hitler.

For context, one source states of a temporal paradox:

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.

Photo credit, fair use

Rather than using a nebulous depiction of an infant, I’ll instead use the above photo of Hitler as a boy. I offer this perspective, because as a schoolboy it’s likely that young Adolf had the capacity to use rational thinking. This is something of which an infant is incapable, as far as I understand.

Of course, this isn’t to suggest that killing infants or small children is morally and ethically acceptable. That’s the point of the thought experiment. Demonstrating a hypothetical syllogism for the killing young Hitler, I’ll use this form: If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.

If you were legally authorized to go back in time and kill young Hitler, then your actions wouldn’t relate to murder (the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person).

If your actions wouldn’t relate to murder, then you’d be lawfully and justifiably able to prevent the deaths of many people.

Therefore, if you were legally authorized to go back in time and kill young Hitler, then you’d be lawfully and justifiably able to prevent the deaths of many people.

A Consistency Paradox

Whether or not you would actually kill the small boy in the above photo is a separate matter as to whether or not you could actually do so. This is where a consistency paradox is of note. According to one source:

The Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture and Larry Niven’s law of conservation of history, is a principle developed by Russian physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov in the mid-1980s.

Novikov intended it to solve the problem of paradoxes in time travel, which is theoretically permitted in certain solutions of general relativity that contain what are known as closed timelike curves.

The principle asserts that if an event exists that would cause a paradox or any “change” to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero. It would thus be impossible to create time paradoxes.

Regarding the Novikov self-consistency principle, I think of the area of no concern and ULA which map onto one another. Regarding this perspective, I stated in a blogpost entitled Let’s Just Not Even Discuss It, Man:

I’ll adaptively discuss matters within my area of no concern. Yet, when it comes to rigid demands about what should, must, or ought to be the case (or not), “Fuck it, man. Let’s just not even discuss it, man.” I have better things than that to do with my limited time on Earth.

I have no problem discussing what I consider right or wrong, moral or ethical, logical and reasonable, and dilemmas and paradoxes regarding to time travel in order to kill young Hitler. I find it an interesting thought experiment.

Nonetheless, I don’t waste what little time I have left in life demanding that others absolutistically or conditionally should, must, or ought to adopt the same outlook as I. To maintain that self-disturbing belief would be to willingly sacrifice my remaining breaths.

While I don’t begrudge people who engage in self-sacrificial behavior in that way, I’m not following down that path of destruction. When further contemplating a consistency paradox regarding ULA, I consider what one source states:

The consistency paradoxes arise when you, for instance, try to kill your younger self by a backward causal process but evidently have to fail. The reason why you must fail is quite obvious. Your younger self belongs to the past and therefore, since you cannot change the past, you cannot commit retro-suicide.

This answer tacitly assumes that resurrection is impossible. You may, of course, kill your younger self in the past without changing the past if you have come alive again later on. This is not what is paradoxical.

What is paradoxical is the fact that you are assumed to be able to kill your younger self in the sense that you are well-equipped to make these kinds of retro-killings, you may even be targeting your younger self, but you must always miss. The same holds, indeed, for all those people who stay alive into the present.

You cannot retro-kill somebody yesterday who is alive today. There must be certain constraints which prohibit you from making retro-suicide or retro-killing, and these constraints may be very local, changing from case to case, or they may be universal in nature depending on some physical laws.

So, on the one hand, the assumption is that it physically possible for you to kill somebody in the past; but, on the other hand, it is physically impossible for you to do what is physically possible. This is the paradox.

A way out of the paradox was suggested by David Lewis (1976) who argued that the ability of killing somebody should be understood as a possibility compossible with the relevant fact. As an opera singer, for example, you are able to sing operas, since you have the physical capacity and training to do so, but because of a temporary loss of voice, you cannot hum a single tune.

What you can do relative to one set of facts, is something you cannot do relative to another set of facts. This contextual solution explains why you are able to retro-kill your younger self, given the fact that your gun is in proper working-order, you have a good aim at your target, and no one forces you to abstain from taking action.

But it also explains why you are unable to retro-kill anybody who is alive today because you cannot change the past. The consistency paradox exists only in virtue of an equivocation of a context-sensitive ‘can’, and if we notice that, we see that the paradox vanishes like dew before the sun.

I find the entirety of that cited source fascinating! As I’ve read it several times, I think about the implications of traveling backward in time. Also, I consider right or wrong, moral or ethical, logical and reasonable, and dilemmas and paradoxes related to the killing of young Hitler.

Finalizing my consideration of a consistency paradox regarding ULA, I remind myself that this topic is within the area of no concern. As far as I know, it’s an impossible endeavor! Besides, young Adolf was a fallible human who hadn’t yet committed atrocities for which he’s known.

Conclusion

I’ve chosen to carefully consider my approach to rational living through daily practice of REBT by contemplating a thought experiment in relation to a consistency paradox. In all honesty, I’d be surprised to discover that anyone has read this entire blogpost.

All the same, I benefit from this form of logical and reasonable practice. Not only did I learn quite a bit of information about paradoxes of time travel, I was able to also consider actions of people in the present who irrationally believe that they’re making a difference for the future.

Assassinating political figures, engaging in riotous behavior, and taking other steps along the path of destruction for the sake of sociopolitical change, many of people fail to understand how the ABC model and practice of UA could better serve one’s limited time on Earth.

Thinking of changing matters within the circle of concern (i.e., anything politically-related, the past, etc.) or regarding the area of no concern (e.g., traveling back in time to kill Hitler) may be entertaining. However, affixing impossible demands to such matters is the stuff of delusion.

This is true of assassinating one’s sociopolitical opponent in the present and rigidly demanding that one’s criminal actions must bring about lasting and effective change. Even on a substantially smaller level, murdering someone you detest likely won’t result in the change you expect.

Therefore, I invite you to change what you can: your reaction to undesirable people, places, events, and things. Personally, this is a much better use of the limited time left in this lifetime.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

References:

Faye, J. (2021, February 26). Backward causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

Gevanny_. (2020). I enhanced an old school photo of Adolf Hitler from 1900, with AI. We can see the childish look of what will become the most famous and evil man of 20th century [Image]. Reddit. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/ww2/comments/mtfvhl/i_enhanced_an_old_school_photo_of_adolf_hitler/

Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2025, August 26). A preventative approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-preventative-approach-to-self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, August 26). An abortive approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/an-abortive-approach-to-self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, July 11). Concern and no concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/concern-and-no-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2023, March 12). Controlling the flow of harm. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/controlling-the-flow-of-harm

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2025, August 8). Cost vs. expense. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cost-vs-expense

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Costs and payoffs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/costs-and-payoffs

Hollings, D. (2023, June 26). Ctrl+alt+del. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ctrl-alt-del

Hollings, D. (2025, June 17). Daily practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/daily-practice

Hollings, D. (2024, January 7). Delusion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/delusion

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2025, May 4). Dilemmas and paradoxes. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/dilemmas-and-paradoxes

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (2025, September 7). Have to. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/have-to

Hollings, D. (2024, August 9). Healthy concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/healthy-concern

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Hypothetical syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hypothetical-syllogism

Hollings, D. (2024, February 14). Insufferable vs. undesirable. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/insufferable-vs-undesirable

Hollings, D. (2025, April 23). Judgment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/judgment

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, September 2). Let’s just not even discuss it, man. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/let-s-just-not-even-discuss-it-man

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, February 5). Logically inconsistent. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logically-inconsistent

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2025, February 19). Nature, nurture, and other. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nature-nurture-and-other

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2025, April 9). Perception, action, and will. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-action-and-will

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2025, April 25). Preferences vs. expectations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferences-vs-expectations

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2025, May 11). Proper education. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/proper-education

Hollings, D. (2023, February 4). Provocation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/provocation

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2025, March 2). Questioning, challenging, and contradicting irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/questioning-challenging-and-contradicting-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living

Hollings, D. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Recommendatory should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/recommendatory-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, February 17). Revisiting the circle of control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/revisiting-the-circle-of-control

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought

Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering

Hollings, D. (2025, January 2). The distinction between law and justice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-distinction-between-law-and-justice

Hollings, D. (2025, April 15). This cake smells unpleasant. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-cake-smells-unpleasant

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux

Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Adolf Hitler. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Wikipedia. (n.d.). B-theory of time. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Closed timelike curve. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). David Lewis (philosopher). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(philosopher)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Deontology. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

Wikipedia. (n.d.). General relativity. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Dmitriyevich_Novikov

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Killing baby Hitler. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_baby_Hitler

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Larry Niven. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Niven

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Metaphysics. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Multiple time dimensions. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Novikov self-consistency principle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Philosophy of space and time. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stephen Covey. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Covey

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Temporal paradox. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism