Howling:Sometimes knowing your own future is what enables you to change it

31:40 into The Girl Who Waited, Amy says, "I'm now changing that future… every law of time says that shouldn't be possible."

The Doctor answers, "Yes, except sometimes knowing your own future is what enables you to change it, especially if you're bloody-minded, contradictory, and completely unpredictable."

Although Rory and the Doctor go on to conclude that if anyone can defeat predestiny it's Amy, this sounds like a pretty good clue for how the Doctor's going to escape his own death. Of course it later turns out that the two versions of Amy can't exist in the TARDIS at the same time, but then Moffat told us that "where is the future Doctor's TARDIS?" is "a good question" and "it's worth keeping your eyes open".

More importantly, at the end, while they couldn't save that future version of Amy, they did prevent her from ever existing, so a different 57-year-old Amy will be able to exist later. And that's really what the Doctor would be after—not saving his future self from the astronaut, but preventing himself from ending up in that future in the first place.

Up until now, I thought it was going to be like in the novel Anachrophobia, where the Doctor carefully arranges changes so no paradox is visible and his apparent death is the same as always except that he isn't actually dead. But now I'm not sure. Any theories on how he might use what he learned here to change his future? --173.228.85.35 23:43, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

The joke is: Don't tell me when I'm going to die. Tell me where, so I'll know not to go there. Boblipton 00:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The Teselecta already told him both where and when. But it's hard to plan 200 years ahead. At least I always screw up and forget after that long.

Just picture it: The Doctor is hanging out with his new companions in the TARDIS and asks where they want to go. Phil can't think of anywhere, but Keiko says, "That place in Utah with all the sandstone pillars that you took your first companions to looked pretty cool, let's go there!" He looks over at K9 Mark V, who just say, "Affirmative, Master. It did indeed look cool." Phil just shrugs. The Doctor pauses and says, "Wait, wasn't there something about Utah I was supposed to remember? Oh well, it can't have been that important. There's a great little diner by Lake Silencio, why don't we start there?" --173.228.85.35 01:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor describing Amy as "bloody-minded, contradictory, and completely unpredictable", while quite accurate, seems to me to be a severe case of pot-and-kettle syndrome. --89.240.248.153 06:16, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

That was my point. Even if he didn't realize he was talking about himself when he said that, it seems a good bet he'd figure it out later… --173.228.85.35 06:37, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

"And that's really what the Doctor would be after—not saving his future self from the astronaut, but preventing himself from ending up in that future in the first place."

There's a problem in that theory though. His death in Utah was a fixed point in time and space, according to the people in robot Amy. DoctorHer 09:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Just because a buch of professional torturers in a bureaucrat-designed ship that keeps trying to kill them think they know what a fixed point in time is, that doesn't mean they do. They don't have billions of years of evolution (see that thread) telling them what a fixed point in time feels like. Eve if they do, all it means is that an entirely different timeline splits off. I think the Doctor can live with that. Boblipton 12:46, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Even a Time Lord can be mistaken about a fixed point. The Doctor was, in The Fires of Pompeii. If you listen to the conversation between the Doctor and Donna while they're inside Vesuvius, he initially describes the eruption of Vesuvius and consequent destruction of Pompeii as a fixed point but, after learing more about what the Pyroviles are doing, realises it isn't: "That means it's not history, it's me!" --2.96.20.145 17:31, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

In the show, we're (primarily) following a particular timeline - we see the Doctor shot by whoever is in the spacesuit; later, the Teselecta reveals to him (via TARDIS playback) where and when he will (seemingly) die. If the Doctor knowing the facts of his death on Lake Silencio manages to avoid that death, then (in the timeline we're following), what we witnessed in Utah still occurs - the mystery is, what did we actually witness and how does the Doctor survive it. If it was as simple (story-wise, not Whoniverse-wise) as the Doctor just nudging or jumping or creating new timelines, well, there'd be no adventure, thrills or puzzle in the programme. The Doctor could be a dumb-ass who saved the day everytime by changing timelines so the problem never was. In the Girl Who Waited, both timelines might've co-existed if the TARDIS had been capable of transporting both Amys. So. perhaps, the original Doctor does introduce another Doctor into the equation to be killed to allow this Doctor his own timeline - it might be (I'm not saying there's any evidence) that the shooter is the Doctor, one held in statis, out of the way, limited in his ability to interact and alter history. Suppose it would amount to a loop, the Doctor bending timeline so it reconnects at that moment on Lake Silencio giving birth to a new timeline because the Doctor we are now following dies there and another continues on from there. Gawd, this time stuff confuses me. What I'm saying is, using the GWW scenario as example: you have two Amys (the old version actually being the Amy who's timeline we've been following in the show thus far), but it's the young Amy who they save, who is grabbed from an earlier timeline (let's ignore all the time compression). So, the Doctor who is shot is the the original Doctor but there's another Doctor to continue on. Imagine if the older Amy had been transported with young Amy and as the TARDIS reconnected with the correct timeline (that of the Green Achor) the older Amy dropped dead - her forty years of life would not cease to have been, as she momentarily exists physically in the 'correct' time, but will only exist as memories shared by Rory, Amy and the Doctor.

If this is confusing, well, to put it simply - if the Doctor changes things so he doen't die at Lake Silencio, it won't ever be as crass and unimaginative as he simply avoids going there. Mostly, because we know he is there, not only that, but he invites Amy, River and Rory to witness it - which, for, me is the significant part... Why do they need to see him killed? So that they're convinced of his death? So that the Doctor can finally escape of Madame Kovarian's hunt? There are so many contradictions about this incident, why doesn't River recall killing Doctor there if she did, why does the Doctor invite himself to Utah, why don't Rory and Amy seem that concerned about losing their baby (despite everything, you'd still grieve that loss?)? The answer will be complex, explained hastely, and with so much sleight of hand and fireworks, we'll be debating its actual viability until the 50th anniversary!!! Makgrey 18:45, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

When you're dealing with a bootstrap paradox, "Why" is not the issue. Assume that the Doctor pulls some hanky-panky so he's not dead. Best is he makes it look as much as possible like it did before, in order to cut down on the potentially disastrous changes. The reason he does it that way is that he did it that way. Boblipton 20:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Boblipton is quite right: For examples of the Doctor using bootstrap paradoxes to get himself out of trouble, see Time Crash and Space/Time. As for Makgrey and "we'll be debating its actual viability until the 50th anniversary": I suspect we'll be debating it far longer than that; stuff from An Unearthly Child still gets debated, and that was aired nearly 48 years ago. --2.96.20.145 20:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC)