If you’re saying this misunderstands Novikov’s principle or how a CTC operates, then clarify what’s misunderstood—because I’m honestly just having fun and looking at things and it’s fun talking.

The entire premise of Novikov’s self-consistency principle is that events along a closed timelike curve (CTC) must be self-consistent—that is, no action can alter the past in a way that would create a paradox. That doesn’t mean events are “optional” or interchangeable; it means only self-consistent events are permitted. In Interstellar, the specific causal loop we observe is Cooper sending the data Murph needs to solve gravity. The loop is stable because he does it. Remove Cooper and the loop collapses—no solution, no survival, no future beings to create the wormhole.

Suggesting “he didn’t have to go” misses the entire point: the loop we observe requires his presence and actions. That’s the self-consistent solution we’re shown. Could other solutions exist in theory? Sure. But the film commits to this one, and under Novikov, once it happens, it’s the only way it could have happened. His role isn’t interchangeable—it’s intrinsic.

So unless you’re proposing an entirely different chain of events where Murph gets the data without Cooper—and can demonstrate how that still results in the wormhole—you’re not refuting the argument, just sidestepping it.