That "whoa" moment?

[Sephiroth]

No, the reason it's not a Bootstrap Paradox is because it isn't a paradox.

So, you are person x who does not understand the concept of a bootstrap paradox - weirdly enough because you bring in multiple true aspects and then continue saying "no" - and bring in the same wrong reasons to explain why it is not a bootstrap paradox and that makes you right? No. That, is not how it is. To make it even worse, you are actually convinced that a concistency paradox/grandfather paradox is not a consistency paradox, when the major outcome is still the same (changing time by doing something but "it is not so bad if the outcome is not so different" when in reality every change is already an outcome in the first place.

Example of a paradox:

I go back in time. I kill my father. I am than not born. Which means I can't go back in time. And I can't kill my father. So, I'm born. And this repeats.

That is a so-called consistency/bootstrap paradox. A truly causally impossible thing. You have not understood a single point of my post.

"At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time."

And here we are again with you not understanding that not all paradoxes are true impossibilities. You need to understand first that not paradoxes are impossible events but often just seemingly problematic ideas. E.g. the self-fulfilling prophecy, a psychology concept is paradoxical. It is not impossible though.

A bootstrap paradox DOES contain self-contradictions.

It doesn't. You just don't know what an endless cycle is and like others don't understand that this allows it to work - I have really written everything already. That is a big difference. Like many other people you live under the impression something needs to have "a different beginning" which is flat-out not the case because of its very nature. "It exists because it allows itself to exist" is only a problematic situation in a chain of events that is not cyclic. I have already provided you the reasons but you continue to write the same stuff people on youtube and reddit would write and after you actually thinking something that would cause a consistency paradox would not cause one by "only changing minor things" and also not even remotely reading what I wrote but proceeding to behave like 50% of the rest, I cannot even take that seriously anymore. You better never ever write in a post addressed at me "in this context ..." because I am actually pretty pissed now.

The paradox here is that the fan got his music from the past... But the music in the past came from the future. This is what a bootstrap paradox is. It's a stable paradox because the information exists in any case, but it's a paradox because it has no origin. It just is.

It is really funny how you keep bringin up examples that are the right and show what a bootstrap paradox is and yet keep insisting that a bootstrap paradox is impossible and that Chrono is no bootstrap paradox. "Paradox" does not automatically mean "impossible". Exactly as I and even you have already said. Whatever happened, happened. A bootstrap paradox "just is". The Novikov Principle. The story of Chrono, if the writer as I have already explained, has not thought of "oh, I have taken something that was not there before" brings in an absolutely normal bootstrap cycle.

In the Chrono situation, this conflict is not there. Chrono, the doll, the knowledge of using the doll to replace Chrono... All of these have very clear, linear starts and ends. None of them are infinitely repeating upon themselves, and therefore, none of them are a Bootstrap Paradox.

That would be the case if the guy we saw dying in the game was actually Chrono. But if the guy we do see is the doll in the first place because the time travelling already happened, then it played out exactly the same and therefore also has no actual beginning. Then they saved him because they already saved him but actually could only save him because they always saved him in the first place. But keep on insisting that it is a consistency paradox and that a "minor change is no causal problem just because Doctor Who and a few others have said that maybe that is not bad". That would be way worse than a bootstrap paradox. It then would be one of the many Chrono Trigger paradoxes that actually consists of "changing time" and believe me "oh, but Chrono was replaced by a doll so it is not so bad" does not help at all causality-wise. The way it is displayed it is fully believable that it is a bootstrap paradox because we never see that the guy that "dies" is actually the real, living Chrono instead of a fully functioning doll that mimics exactly what he is like. We never get to learn "this is 100% and under all circumstances not a doll that was already working as replacement". An answer that the developers could give but would actually just make it worse. A bootstrap paradox is a solid, working time-loop. Consistency paradoxes are not. But after my last post and your two last ones I am sure that you a) either do not have spent enough time to actually think about the topic or b) have not even bothered reading my post truly and taken enough time to think about that one and I can't really say what is worse for me.