Since TPTB have stated in at least one podcast that Ms. Hawking in FBYE established the rules of mental time travel, I thought I'd go on record as saying that I think that's all clever word play on their part and that, in fact, she lied to Desmond. Who is she that we should believe her? After all, she utterly contradicts herself, if you examine her statements closely.

If you'll recall, Desmond tries to buy a ring from her and she persuades him not to because his past has a different path and he apparently cannot rewrite it, or if he even attempted to do things differently it wouldn't matter because, as she ultimately explains, "The universe, unfortunately, has a way of course correcting."

But what had she said prior to that (emphasis below is mine)?Well, I know your name as well as I know that you that don't ask Penny to marry you. In fact, you break her heart. Well, breaking her heart is, of course, what drives you in a few short years from now to enter that sailing race -- to prove her father wrong -- which brings you to the island where you spend the next 3 years of your life entering numbers into the computer until you are forced to turn that failsafe key. And if you don't do those things, Desmond David Hume, every single one of us is dead. So give me that sodding ring.

Now, if Desmond cannot change his actions, or if the universe would eventually "course correct" things even if he did, why would Ms. Hawking insist that Desmond not buy the ring? As if that wasn't enough evidence to raise doubt about the, well, truthiness of her statement, why does she tell him that if he doesn't do every single one of those things they (whoever "they" are) would all be dead??? If the universe course corrects, all will end up as it is supposed to anyways, right?

I think Ms. Hawking is lying, and what I think we have been witnessing since the beginning of the show is characters who are mentally time traveling from the future -- i.e., Locke (who at times is oddly prescient) and Kate (whom others have speculated needed that toy plane as her constant). Even Ben, when Alex is shot, is shocked as he exclaims (I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't supposed to happen that way.

Well, this is my theory, for now. It's quite open for debate and comments. It's also open for retraction as more information becomes available ;)

Now, if Desmond cannot change his actions, or if the universe would eventually "course correct" things even if he did, why would Ms. Hawking insist that Desmond not buy the ring?

Because Desmond is different, special even, he can change things...

[We see Desmond at the pub.]

BARTENDER: What'll it be?

[Desmond eyes a bottle of MacCutcheon behind the bar.]

DESMOND: Just give me a pint of your cheapest. I'm celebrating.

BARTENDER: Oh, what's the occasion?

DESMOND: I think I've made the biggest mistake of my life. And the worst part is I'm pretty sure I've made it before.

BARTENDER: That's what they call deja vu, mate.

DESMOND: Do they now?

[Desmond hears Make Your Own Kind of Music start playing on the jukebox. He sees a soccer game on the TV, and Graybridge wins.]

DESMOND [excited]: I had the wrong night. I was right. I was off by a night. I heard the song and then -- I remember this. I'm not crazy. I can still change things. I can still change it.

[He starts to leave as Jimmy Lennon comes in the door with a cricket bat.]

DESMOND: Jimmy Lennon.

JIMMY [ to Bartender]: Where the hell's my money?

DESMOND [to Bartender]: Hey, duck brother!

[Jimmy Lennon swings, the bartender ducks, and the cricket bat bashes Desmond in the head, knocking him out.]

[We get a flash of Desmond turning the key. Cut to a shot of trees from the ground up. We see Desmond slowly open his eyes and realize he's on the island, regaining consciousness after the hatch implosion. We see Desmond running naked through the jungle as he comes upon some debris from the hatch: the stationary bike, dart board, ping-pong table. He sees the hole the implosion made.]

DESMOND: Oh, no. Oh.

[He notices the photograph of Penelope and himself and picks it up.]

DESMOND [upset, crying]: Please, let me go back. Let me go back one more time. I'll do it right. I'll do it right this time. I'm sorry, Penny. I'll change it. I'll change it.
...he just wasn't supposed to change this thing, and if not for an act of course correction in the form of a cricket bat to the head I think he might well have, and then we'd all be dead, because Ms. Hawking told the truth, when it mattered at least.

I think Desmond is the Black Swan (http://www.losthatch.com/images%5Cscreen_captures%5CS2E03_Station_3_The_Swa n.jpg), and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Ms. Hawking was connected with The DHARMA Initiative.

Even Ben, when Alex is shot, is shocked as he exclaims (I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't supposed to happen that wayHe said "he changed the rules", I think Ben used Alex to bring Keamy to him and thought that she wouldn't be harmed, but he was wrong, as he himself later told Locke her blood is on his hands.

BEN: I was told a lot of things, too--that I was chosen, that I was special. Ended up with a tumor on my spine and my daughter's blood all over my hands.

LOCKE: I'm sorry those things happened to you, Ben.

BEN: Those things had to happen to me. That was my destiny. But you'll understand soon enough that there are consequences to being chosen... because, destiny, John, is a fickle b***h.Jacob changed the rules, Ben's time was up, I think he only really accepted or realised when Alex was shot.

ETA: It was Widmore, Widmore changed the rules.

I think that when the universe course corrects, it uses an agent to do it, and one of those agents is Mrs. Hawking. Mrs. Hawking's job was to convince Desmond to do or not do certain things at certain times, such as not give Penny the ring. If she fails, the universe cannot get its course-correcting done.

She cannot fail because the universe always course-corrects. This is why when Pierre Chang looks at his arm in the comic-con video he knows he is going to lose it, and he does. He also says that he wants Dharma reconstituted in hopes that the purge can be avoided, but that's not going to happen either. It will be interesting to see them try. But I think they will ultimately fail.

a different take:

Mrs. Hawking is not lying. She's oblivious to what Desmond actually represents.
She simply couldn't know what he is.

She's persuading him not to change the future because he CAN, although she actually thinks it will be the end of us all and yet it actually wouldn't be. Because he is the one thing they couldn't predict. He defies all logic, understanding and reason. He is the Black Swan. She's reciting the company line.

If Desmond's changes always result in all of us dying, then it's a useless device, short of killing everyone in the LOST universe in some cheesy galaxy-wide explosion. Can we really see that as the end to this series?

Otherwise, he can't even change anything. Then you tell me what good is the plot device in the first place? A cool narrative trick that ultimately doesn't change the future? Maybe.

Seems to me the only reason to use time travel in the first place is to be able to change something. Of all the avenues to go down, they chose one they can't even maximize? I am betting not.

Desmond is the Black Swan, that means he's the thing they can't account for. Mrs Hawking is telling him the rules as they apply to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else.

When Darlton said they had a different method of Time Travel, I think this is it.
The personification of the Black Swan. And it's an awesome idea, IMO.

When Ben is shocked that Alex was killed it's because she had never died in a previous iteration because he nor Keamy nor Jacob or anyone could actually change the future. Alex never died before, so Ben, while likely prescient because of knowledge from previous iterations in his 'mental travel', could only ever use the information to his advantage. That's why he's a great con man.

When Ben exclaims "he changed the rules" He meant Widmore.
The man who brought the Black Swan into play. Desmond did change the future because he always could after the Failsafe.

Ms. Hawking is lying, but she's also telling the truth. She's right when she says that if Desmond doesn't get to the Island, everyone is dead, because it's only by coming to the Island that Desmond becomes the Swan in the first place. She knows exactly what Desmond is, and she's making sure that he doesn't undo what he's already done, which is to save the world. She's lying in the sense that she's trying to convince Desmond he can't change things. Desmond will change things, just not yet, and yet after he's changed things he shouldn't or wouldn't want to change things anymore, so in a sense the universe, changed, would be fixed.

I think we have been witnessing since the beginning of the show is characters who are mentally time traveling from the future -- i.e., Locke (who at times is oddly prescient) and Kate (whom others have speculated needed that toy plane as her constant). Even Ben, when Alex is shot, is shocked as he exclaims (I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't supposed to happen that way.

Yes!

Kate, Locke and Charlie in Season 1 all, at times, seem to be acting with greater maturity and understanding than their characters would seem to warrant. This is because they have already gone back, with the character development they've since gone through in Seasons 2 through 6. (Well, for Charlie, Seasons 2 and 3. :( )

Other candidates might be Sun, Sayid and Hurley. Well, what do you know, just about all of the Oceanic Six. Is Aaron so very "special" because he can go back to his birth and change basically everything in his life? A cry here, a coo there, little ripples in a pond with large-scale reverberations in time.

Of all of them, Jack is the one at the beginning of Pilot 1 who does not seem to "know" - at least in a conscious sense - of the future that awaits him. Look at how Kate looks at him the "first time" they meet. She knows Jack's fate. Jack will die in an act of self-sacrifice for the greater good.


Mrs. Hawking is not lying. She's oblivious to what Desmond actually represents. She simply couldn't know what he is.

She's persuading him not to change the future because he CAN, although she actually thinks it will be the end of us all and yet it actually wouldn't be. Because he is the one thing they couldn't predict. He defies all logic, understanding and reason. He is the Black Swan.

The irony is that Desmond's situation is most like ours, the audience - and completely reversed from the rest of the Losties. Those who come to the Island can change the past via flashback or through looping as long as the predestination paradox is avoided, but the future can not be changed - it is supposedly fixed. Desmond cannot change the past (like us) for his past is necessary to get to the Island that he may become the Swan who can change the future - again, like us. Desmond is the only one who can change the Numbers, the core values of humanity and the environment.

Indeed.

The irony is that Desmond's situation is most like ours, the audience - and completely reversed from the rest of the Losties. Those who come to the Island can change the past via flashback or through looping as long as the predestination paradox is avoided, but the future can not be changed - it is supposedly fixed. Desmond cannot change the past (like us) for his past is necessary to get to the Island that he may become the Swan who can change the future - again, like us. Desmond is the only one who can change the Numbers, the core values of humanity and the environment.

Indeed.

Ooh you're good :biggrin:.

AZJeepDude.... I could not agree with you more. I have been arguing the same point since the episode aired. What is the reason Mrs. Hawking stops Desmond. There is no need for her to interact with Desmond if everything will just correct itself??? Nothing Desmond does should change his destiny of ending up on the island pushing a button. A button that saves the world, unless you turn a fail-safe key... I still don't understand the need for pushing a button, if you could just blow up the Swan.

Also, Desmond does change the past. Even if in just small ways. I keep thinking about the butterfly effect. Tiny movement of a butterflies wings ultimately causes a hurricane....

What if Desmond was not there to turn off the sink after Widmore left it on?? Would Widmore have left the sink on if Desmond had not visited him. Either way, the bathroom being completely flooded with water sure changed some janitors day.

Unless his interactions with the past, were always supposed to happen. He actually changed nothing, it was all his destiny. If that is the case, I will be disappointed. I am not a big fan of Destiny. I like Free-Will.

I have read some theories where it has been hypothesized that Dharma's ultimate objective is to change the past... to change the outcome of the future. Why else would they need an AstroPhysicist to study the Kerr Effect??

I still don't understand the need for pushing a button, if you could just blow up the Swan.

Not just anyone would turn the Key. Most likely, most wouldn't. So, how do you get someone to turn the Key? Well, the protocol of pushing the button might help create the psychological environment necessary to prepare one to turn the Key.

Ooh you're good :biggrin:.


BF, yes she is! Back in April I had posted something aout a future machine that Faraday had invented in which he could see the future and change the past and Jane was right on with her comments back then!
I think Jane is actually a LOST writer working undercover in cahoots with Jacob to take over Kates body so that when Jack and Kate finally do the BIG NASTY, Jane will be the first to give us a thumbs up!:biggrin:

I think Jane is actually a LOST writer working undercover in cahoots with Jacob to take over Kates body so that when Jack and Kate finally do the BIG NASTY, Jane will be the first to give us a thumbs up!:biggrin:

Sounds kinky. :eek2:

I think Jane is actually a LOST writer working undercover in cahoots with Jacob to take over Kates body so that when Jack and Kate finally do the BIG NASTY, Jane will be the first to give us a thumbs up!:biggrin:

Oh, like you need me to give the thumbs up to that? ;)

Jane are you a spy?? Kidding, I think your great!!

I have been putting some thought into the Swan... If I remember right, The Others did not even know the Swan existed until Ben was held prisoner in the gun vault. Then, it was Ben who manipulated Locke into NOT pushing the buttons. Ultimately making Desmond turn the Fail Safe Key.

Do you think that is exactly what Ben wanted to happen?? If so, what would The Others, Jacob, and the island gain by having the Swan imploded?? It makes me think there was much more going on than just a release of energy every 108 minutes...

Also, what the entire purpose behind Mrs. Hawking "guiding" Desmond to the island, is not because he was the only one who could push the buttons... but he was the only one that would turn the fail-safe key??

No doubt in my mind that Jane is a Lost writer. Go ahead Jane tell everyone who you really are. Why did you wait almost 2 years to start posting after you registered at the Lage?
You are one of the best I have ever read, keep it up, love your words but your conclusions are all wrong IMO:surprise:

The irony is that Desmond's situation is most like ours, the audience - and completely reversed from the rest of the Losties. Those who come to the Island can change the past via flashback or through looping as long as the predestination paradox is avoided, but the future can not be changed - it is supposedly fixed. Desmond cannot change the past (like us) for his past is necessary to get to the Island that he may become the Swan who can change the future - again, like us. Desmond is the only one who can change the Numbers, the core values of humanity and the environment.

Indeed.

By "cannot" you are saying he must not or should not change his past, not that he actually cannot, right?

Also, Desmond does change the past. Even if in just small ways. I keep thinking about the butterfly effect. Tiny movement of a butterflies wings ultimately causes a hurricane....

What if Desmond was not there to turn off the sink after Widmore left it on?? Would Widmore have left the sink on if Desmond had not visited him. Either way, the bathroom being completely flooded with water sure changed some janitors day.

Unless his interactions with the past, were always supposed to happen. He actually changed nothing, it was all his destiny. If that is the case, I will be disappointed. I am not a big fan of Destiny. I like Free-Will.

I don't think Desmond changed the past, because if he went to see Widmore in 1996, then he went to see Widmore in 1996. Nothing changed. I don't think that is at odds with free will, his 1996 consciousness just always got sucked into his 2004 head.

But even if he had changed the past, I've always had the impression that "course correction" was developed specifically as a way to get around the Butterfly Effect. Instead of a change having a chain of larger and larger effects, due to course correction, the effects become smaller and smaller until everything is back "on target" again.

By "cannot" you are saying he must not or should not change his past, not that he actually cannot, right?

It might seem to Desmond that the possibility exists for him to change his past, but he needs to resist such temptations - at least as far as the big picture is concerned. It looks like some leeway exists for such minor considerations as who gets hit with a cricket bat, or what he says to Charlie on the street, but it would be unwise for him to alter the significant choices he's made in his life.
100%
Jane are you a spy?? Kidding, I think your great!!

No doubt in my mind that Jane is a Lost writer. Go ahead Jane tell everyone who you really are. Why did you wait almost 2 years to start posting after you registered at the Lage?

You are one of the best I have ever read, keep it up, love your words but your conclusions are all wrong

Edward Mars: Don't trust her. She's dangerous.
Kate: Trust me.
Edward Mars: Listen to me, no matter what she does. No matter how she makes you feel, don't you trust a word that she says. She will do anything to get away.
Kate: I got trust issues.
Guy in Bank: I told you not to trust her.

Charlie: Trust him? No offense, mate, but if there's 1 person on this island I would put my absolute faith in to save us all it would be John Locke.

Libby: And we've got trust issues.
Danielle: Trust me.
Ethan: You have a choice. We're good people, Claire. We're a good family, but if you're going to trust us with your child I want you to be sure. Okay?
Rose: Trust me. I know.

Juliet: You can trust me Jack. I'm not gonna hurt you.
Sun: Trust her?! She's one of them!
Mikhail: So why not trust me?

Henry Gale: Wow, you guys have some real trust issues, don't you? Guess it makes sense she didn't tell you.

Of course Mrs. Hawking lied. She told two conflicting truths, therefore she lied.

How can she say that if Desmond doesn't do those things then "every single one of us will die" (whoever "every single one us" refers to, that's another question), while at the same time she tells him that the universe course corrects? It doesn't make sense! I think that the potential does exist to change the outcome of things, and simply she was trying to stop Desmond from making a decision that could very well endanger if not all humanity then at least those with whom Mrs. Hawking herself is connected.

Perhaps small changes do "course correct", but other, more significant changes, really can change future outcomes. I tend to believe that this is more the case.

This is a fun discussion. After this, I hope people understand why I would disagree.
I just have a hard to swallowing such disingenuous actions on part of the writers.
They refer back to her time and time again as an explanation for 'how it works'

He took the ring, right?
So she let him take the ring, even after the warning.

So the question really is, why did she let him take the ring if she thought that he would actually kill all of us?
Might she have thought 'he'll be course corrected anyhow'...? Makes sense.

If she's a liar why trust a word she says?
If Carlton and Lindelof refer to her as the standard bearer for the mental/unstuck time travel rules, then why make her a liar? Really sloppy, don't you think? Who the hell can you trust for some actual concrete mythology on this show?

I'm saying she's telling the truth.
She was the vehicle to transport the rules to the viewer.
The catch is, these rules don't apply to Desmond.
And she didn't know that Desmond was an exception. She wouldn't know until Desmond does change the future and becomes the Black Swan. The viewer won't know until Desmond changes the future as well. After all, this is all theory about the true nature of Desmond anyhow, right?

What is the reason for course correction? To deal with inevitable paradox.
What would this kind of paradox do? Kill us all, I suppose.
So if she's telling Desmond he can't change his future because it would kill us all, then she's saying he can't create a paradox, so in turn she's saying the universe course corrects your paradox in any event. Those are the rules.

They 'seem' redundant only because the audience needs to know the rules and Desmond doesn't necessarily. We need to know why he can't ever truly save Charlie. We need to know why Desmond doesn't just decide to marry Penny and never go to the Island (even if Hawkings actually believes he couldn't ever choose to do so).

If she's lying, then let's not consider anything she says as believable.
Why does she even need to tell him that the universe course corrects paradox?
Why not just let him do whatever he wishes only to futilely be corrected?
Because the viewer needs to know about course correction. How else do you explain it to the viewer? The dramatic irony in the future seasons is/are that we find out that Desmond could have always married Penny, stayed 'behind' and 815 never crashes.

That's why I think some if you think she's lying. Because she had to be redundant in order to explain it to the viewer. If she's talking about paradox killing us all, then it's not two conflicting truths. If he can choose to NOT push the button, then course correction would be useless in that instance. After all he's not supposed to be able to change it. She doesn't believe he can choose to 'not push the button'! She only explained course correction so we would know, otherwise why even let him take the ring in the first place?

Otherwise, they can make up anything they want as they go along.
If she's a liar, then they can re-write these rules however they please.

The main point: If she knew for a fact that Desmond could change the future, she would have never let him take the ring to change the future.So she didn't know. She explained the rules in that manner because we needed to know, not because Desmond needed to know the whole 'deal'

Could she be lying? Absolutely. I just think it's really weak.So little real dirt is given out, to nullify her rules because they wanted to trick us, yet again? I don't like the idea at all.

Since TPTB have stated in at least one podcast that Ms. Hawking in FBYE established the rules of mental time travel, I thought I'd go on record as saying that I think that's all clever word play on their part and that, in fact, she lied to Desmond. Who is she that we should believe her? After all, she utterly contradicts herself, if you examine her statements closely.

If you'll recall, Desmond tries to buy a ring from her and she persuades him not to because his past has a different path and he apparently cannot rewrite it, or if he even attempted to do things differently it wouldn't matter because, as she ultimately explains, "The universe, unfortunately, has a way of course correcting."

But what had she said prior to that (emphasis below is mine)?

Now, if Desmond cannot change his actions, or if the universe would eventually "course correct" things even if he did, why would Ms. Hawking insist that Desmond not buy the ring? As if that wasn't enough evidence to raise doubt about the, well, truthiness of her statement, why does she tell him that if he doesn't do every single one of those things they (whoever "they" are) would all be dead??? If the universe course corrects, all will end up as it is supposed to anyways, right?

I think Ms. Hawking is lying, and what I think we have been witnessing since the beginning of the show is characters who are mentally time traveling from the future -- i.e., Locke (who at times is oddly prescient) and Kate (whom others have speculated needed that toy plane as her constant). Even Ben, when Alex is shot, is shocked as he exclaims (I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't supposed to happen that way.

Well, this is my theory, for now. It's quite open for debate and comments. It's also open for retraction as more information becomes available ;)

I so have been saying this since Ms. Hawkings appeared! She killed that man in the red shoes! It's about time SOMEONE SAID THIS... Don't trust that Hawkings lady!

:biggrin:

Good insight, Thunderstorm. I've struggled with this, and have concluded it just doesn't make any sense, and that it's not meant to. The only purpose for Mrs Hawking is to speak to the audience.

She is saying both "you can't do it because the universe won't let you" (which seems redundant), and "you shouldn't do it, because then we'll all die" (which seems like a plea). So, who is she? How many iterations has she gone through? What's her life like, sitting in a shop, watching men in red shoes dying, eating chestnuts and waiting for Desmond. How many times has Des come in, and not bought the ring? What then, does she close up the shop and go on to her next task, and wait til the wheel comes around again, and she finds herself back in the shop?

The only possible reason (that I can see) for her inclusion is as a message to the viewers. But the message itself is not satisfactory, because if nothing can be changed, what's the point of watching? And what's the use of TT? So, yes, I agree, Thunderstorm, she is telling us the rules, but they don't apply to Desmond.

A lot of posts have mentioned that Desmond DOES have the ability to change the future. I'm not unerstanding where that is coming from. After two conscious time trips back and several Flashes Forward, Desmond had still not changed anything.

Des actually tried quite hard to interfere with Charlie's future/destiny, but saw that Mrs. H was right. Just like the guy in the red shoes...

I don't think Desmond changed the past, because if he went to see Widmore in 1996, then he went to see Widmore in 1996. Nothing changed. I don't think that is at odds with free will, his 1996 consciousness just always got sucked into his 2004 head.

But even if he had changed the past, I've always had the impression that "course correction" was developed specifically as a way to get around the Butterfly Effect. Instead of a change having a chain of larger and larger effects, due to course correction, the effects become smaller and smaller until everything is back "on target" again.I agree.

.
They refer back to her time and time again as an explanation for 'how it works'

He took the ring, right?
So she let him take the ring, even after the warning.

So the question really is, why did she let him take the ring if she thought that he would actually kill all of us?
Might she have thought 'he'll be course corrected anyhow'...? Makes sense.

If she's a liar why trust a word she says?
If Carlton and Lindelof refer to her as the standard bearer for the mental/unstuck time travel rules, then why make her a liar? Really sloppy, don't you think? Who the hell can you trust for some actual concrete mythology on this show?

I'm saying she's telling the truth.
She was the vehicle to transport the rules to the viewer.
All great observations.

I believe that the "rules" have been clearly established regarding traveling to the past in an attempt to change the future. Now the trick is going to be finding the loophole to the "rules." However, I don' t think Desmond's going to be the one to accomplish this task.

The only possible reason (that I can see) for her inclusion is as a message to the viewers. But the message itself is not satisfactory, because if nothing can be changed, what's the point of watching? And what's the use of TT? So, yes, I agree, Thunderstorm, she is telling us the rules, but they don't apply to Desmond.

Yes, that was my point, I'm glad it came across.
Desmond didn't necessarily need to hear it, we did.

And furthermore to what lostorfound said

A lot of posts have mentioned that Desmond DOES have the ability to change the future. I'm not unerstanding where that is coming from. After two conscious time trips back and several Flashes Forward, Desmond had still not changed anything.

You are absolutely right. It's just theory. Although, I think it's a pretty good theory.

A lot of posts have mentioned that Desmond DOES have the ability to change the future. I'm not unerstanding where that is coming from. After two conscious time trips back and several Flashes Forward, Desmond had still not changed anything.

Des actually tried quite hard to interfere with Charlie's future/destiny, but saw that Mrs. H was right. Just like the guy in the red shoes...

Desmond did change things. Charlie didn't die from the lightning, or while saving Claire, or while finding Naomi. He lived to fix the Looking Glass, and thus Penny got the message.

Well, Penny getting the message of course, is what drives her to have her boat close by. Which brings her to the island when the 06, plus Des and Frank, are stuck in the water. And if she didn't rescue them, every single one of them would be dead.

See, this is where I have a problem with the whole destiny, and thus course correction thing. Not just with Lost - I always have this problem. Why is one thing more worthy of course correction than another? Why is it ok to save the pub landlord from getting hit, but not red shoe guy from dying? Why does the universe care about Charlie, about whether he lives or dies?

What is it that destiny has in mind for us? Why isn't "every single one of us will die" destined? How does Mrs Hawking know this, and why should anyone believe her? But, as I say, I've always had that problem, with Alias, with Buffy, with X-Files, with Raiders, with Star Wars - and I just accept that these are the rules of story telling, and go with it. But with Lost, I can't quite see what the rules actually are.

I thought Desmond did change some things? He went to the pub a day early and told Donovan about The Island and time travel, he talked to Charlie, if these interactions changed the paths that Donovan or Charlie were on than that's where I think course correction would come in, it would nudge them back on the correct course?

Damon Lindeloff: Just a quick sort of side note in terms of the way that we deal with time travel on the show - we are very paradox averse; that is to say, when our characters are time traveling, nothing that they do can change the present or the future that you have seen. Which is different than you know, the conventional Back to the Future time travel story telling.

Carlton Cuse: Or Heroes.

Damon Lindelof: Or Heroes, yeah.

Carlton Cuse: For us, what we don't want is for the audience to not be invested in the flash-forwards. When you see that, it would be pretty meaningless if they were a changeable reality-

Damon Lindelof: Well, as far as time travel goes.

Carlton Cuse: As far as time travel goes, yes.

Damon Lindelof: As far as time travel goes, definitely not changeable.

Carlton Cuse: Right. Or that you have a different Jack popping up in an alternative reality which is different than the one that we've established.

Damon Lindelof: Right. That stuff is all really cool, I mean, the Heroes - case in point for all those who watch both shows, we certainly do and are big fans of Heroes - but if Hiro moves back to the past and says "There's a catastrophe that's gonna happen unless you guys save the cheerleader," if they do save the cheerleader, then theoretically future Hiro never exists to come back and warn them. But you know, that's paradox.

Carlton Cuse: The hard thing about this episode was actually structuring the time travel elements - or consciousness traveling elements - and avoiding paradox. But that again is something that I think a lot of people have speculated about - "are there parallel futures, are there sort of multiple universes and worlds that exist in the future depending on how events in the past play out?" and that is not our intention.

Damon Lindelof: Yeah, and Ms. Hawking basically explained those rules in the first episode, "Flashes Before Your Eyes" where she basically said that the universe has a way of course correcting, so even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before, somehow the sort of fabric of time like swoops in around you and fixes everything so things don't go off the rails. I assume probably after "The Constant" we're going to get a lot of questions like "Well, did Penny know when she went to go see Desmond at the stadium in 2001 that he had told her to wait by the phone back in 1994?" and all of these questions, and to that we say refer to the Ms. Hawking scene in "Flashes Before Your Eyes". She gives a fairly good explanation of how everything works.

Damon Lindeloff: Just a quick sort of side note in terms of the way that we deal with time travel on the show - we are very paradox averse; that is to say, when our characters are time traveling, nothing that they do can change the present or the future that you have seen. Which is different than you know, the conventional Back to the Future time travel story telling. (Emphasis mine).

I took this to mean that they're making a deal with us: everything we've seen as the present or future will change. Not that it can't change, just that what they've chosen to show us is the final iteration. They're giving us an anchor (a Constant?). So, yes, Sayid will eventually kill that girl, Hurley will get arrested, Jack will go to the funeral parlour. Sawyer will shoot Tom.

We saw Charlie find out about Not Penny's Boat, but we didn't see him get electrocuted - because that did change. So, the rule is, if we've seen it, it will be the final iteration. Not sure if this will apply to flashbacks, though.

I'm used to the auteurs giving us some rules or hints. For example, if there's a Cassandra-type character, she will state exactly what will happen, but not be believed; if there's a Prophesy, it will be fulfilled, but not in the way anyone expects (there's really two boys born on the same day, whose parents died, or two boys born prematurely with a mother named Emily); if people just happen to be wearing the same clothes and get the same injuries as when they time travelled, they're about to return; if a character seems to lay out the rules (Mrs Hawkings) there's a loophole in there somewhere.

We saw Charlie find out about Not Penny's Boat, but we didn't see him get electrocuted - because that did change.

We did see him get shot through the throat with an arrow in one of Desmond's flashes though?

Good insight, Thunderstorm. I've struggled with this, and have concluded it just doesn't make any sense, and that it's not meant to. The only purpose for Mrs Hawking is to speak to the audience.


So great, she was only speaking for the audience, to inform us of something regarding future outcomes or destiny, and thus she wasn't lying. However, it still doesn't change the fact that she said two contradictory things: That whatever is done to try and change the future will ultimately be course corrected; and that if Desmond doesn't do what he's meant to do that "we will all die".

It may not be a lie but it is a contradiction. But, if Cuse and Lindelof have told us to focus on the one part and not on the other then I suppose that's what we should do. What I see is that they tell us that Mrs. Hawking was telling us a basic fact about the story, so to me that means that somehow both things could be true. Therefore, I think that there may be some potential of changing a future outcome, but something big, not something small like the death of a single individual. And that causing such a big change could be disasterous, if not for everyone then at least for those to whom Mrs. Hawking is somehow connected.

We did see him get shot through the throat with an arrow in one of Desmond's flashes though?

Yes, but we knew it was a flash. Some things are presented as flashes, some as dreams, occasionally some might be a story someone is telling someone else, sometimes it's a memory (as opposed to a FB, eg Claire), and the rest of the time it's the narrative the show is telling us. I'm assuming it's this last that can't be changed.

However, it still doesn't change the fact that she said two contradictory things: That whatever is done to try and change the future will ultimately be course corrected; and that if Desmond doesn't do what he's meant to do that "we will all die".
.

It's a redundancy rather than a contradiction, I think.
Unnecessary information that Desmond didn't even need to know.
She doesn't actually believe that Desmond can or would kill us all (by changing the future).

If she were contradicting herself, I think we would have a big problem in the rules.
I don't think Cuse and Lindelof see that contradiction, noted by richardstone's quotes.
Therefore I think we can only say that her warning is about the result of the paradox which necessitates the course correction in the first place.

God, I sound like a Darlton apologist.
Honestly, I'm just trying to reason the rules myself.
100%


We saw Charlie find out about Not Penny's Boat, but we didn't see him get electrocuted - because that did change. So, the rule is, if we've seen it, it will be the final iteration. Not sure if this will apply to flashbacks, though.
.

So we are seeing the final iteration of many. I like the way that idea sums it up.

I also think the 'future' on LOST is a precarious perception.
Desmond may not have changed the future when he saved Charlie, because Charlie was always a dead man. These were events that had already happened. 4D Desmond was just deciding which way these past events were going to play out, however he couldn't change what had already happened.

That is the 'past' is everything we are seeing, therefore the past is malleable to a certain point that a certain outcome in the 'present' is desired. And the 'present' in the LOST universe is probably 2010.

Since TPTB have stated in at least one podcast that Ms. Hawking in FBYE established the rules of mental time travel, I thought I'd go on record as saying that I think that's all clever word play on their part and that, in fact, she lied to Desmond. Who is she that we should believe her? After all, she utterly contradicts herself, if you examine her statements closely.

Because Desmond is different, special even, he can change things...

I agree with both of you guys. Personally, I don't think that anyone, Desmond and the Losties not withstanding, is a slave to destiny. The idea of my husband and I being brought together because it was our destiny, for example, is cool and romantic. The idea that destiny is behind us getting together or that destiny is behind anything brings a kind of validity to everything and sort of answers any questions put forth by why things happen the way that they do. However, I think that the reason that things happen on LOST and in real life is based on the choices we make - or don't make.

*Waves to Bicklefitch*

Well, how this idea affects LOST, I think, is that it means that the Losties will end up changing something that has technically already happened. In effect, they will steer things in the other direction and make things good again. For me, the message is that all of us and the Losties do have the power of choice behind us, the power to make things better and the power to change things. In LOST, though, the message is explained in a pseudo-science/sci-f-kind of a way and IRL, it's a little more casual...

Good comments, all. Here's my take.

I don't think that Ms. Hawking out-and-out lied as much as she told half-truths. I think that everything that she said is true under ordinary circumstances, but may not have been true of Desmond at the time. Why else would she give the speech about course-correction and the example of the man with red shoes, then warn Des that he could "kill every one of us"? Because at that moment Desmond really could have changed the future.

In general, I see the time-travelling issue as a balance between competing forces. The first is something akin to the "butterfly effect", where small changes to the timeline can, over time, grow geometrically to completely change the future. That is, until the second kicks in, the course-correction force. It resists changes to the timeline much like mass resists changes in momentum.

Think of those experiments you've probably seen where a magnetic weight is suspended in a magnetic field. Forces on the weight (gravity, air movement, vibrations to the electrical coil, intentional forces from observers) represent changes in the timeline: The field itself is the course corrector. You can nudge the weight in one the direction, but the field will resist the nudge and move the weight back toward equilibrium. The weight will occilate around that equilibrium point for a while, but eventually these will dampen out and the original position is re-achieved.

These two forces together achieve a general equilibrium that can be disturbed by time-travelers but not changed in the long-run. Ms. Hawking knows this, but she also knows that certain other forces are present on the island (read: exotic matter, button, fail-safe) that could knock the future into a different equilibrium. Whether turning the fail-safe key preserved the existing equilibrium or created a new equilibrium that was "meant to be" could be argued.

I believe that paradox and course correction are very different things. The paradox that Ms. Hawking was trying to avoid was this: the side-effects of turning the fail-safe key (Desmond's consciousness travel) could cause a future in which the fail-safe wasn't turned. It's irrelevant to us whether this paradox could actually happen, because it didn't. But Ms. Hawking believed that it could happen and that it would wipe out our existence. She also didn't trust that it would course-correct without intervention. So she tells and shows Desmond that the universe course-corrects small changes and lets him assume that it also applies to his current situation, even though she suspects it doesn't. Desmond, in despair, throws the ring into the river, thus preventing the paradox. But just before he gets hit with the cricket bat, he gets the idea that he can change the future.

Now, Darlton did say that the past and future that we see on the show will not change. That doesn't mean that Desmond's destiny has been locked in place, or that Desmond's choices aren't real and don't have consequences. It just means that, except for the flashes about Charlie, we won't be shown destinies other than the one that resulted from those choices.

In fact, based on Desmond realization that he could change the future in FBYE, I think that Desmond must have consciously made at least one other destiny-changing choice, probably when he saved Charlie's life so he could later turn off the Looking-Glass jamming signal. We were lead to believe that only a musician could have turned off the signal, so if Charlie had fried or drowned or gotten impaled, it would have been Desmond and/or some other Lostie in the Looking-Glass, and none of them would have been able to turn off the signal and a very different S4 would have been the result. I want to check whether the scene where Charlie knocks out Desmond happened before the first flashforward in TTLG, because it's possible that this event created the future shown in that flashforward. It could explain why we hadn't seen any flashforwards before TTLG...the future hadn't been written yet.

The idea that destiny is behind us getting together or that destiny is behind anything brings a kind of validity to everything and sort of answers any questions put forth by why things happen the way that they do. However, I think that the reason that things happen on LOST and in real life is based on the choices we make - or don't make.



CHARLIE: It's been a week since my last confession.

PRIEST: Go ahead my son.

CHARLIE: Last night I had physical relaions with a girl I didn't even know.

PRIEST: I see. Anything else?

CHARLIE: Yeah. Uh, Right after that I had relations with another girl. Then straight after that I watched while they had relations with each other. You see, it's...it's my band, father, Drive Shaft. We've been playing the clubs in Manchester. And, uh, we've been getting some heat, a following, you know, and, uh, the girls...There's some real temptations that come with the territory, if you know what I mean.

PRIEST: Well, we all have our temptations, but giving into them, that's your choice. As we live our lives it's really nothing but a series of choices, isn't it?


*Waves Back*

IMHO, that's a great last line by the priest...

For some reason, I'm reminded of the line that even when you decide to do nothing, you're doing something. You're making a choice...

LOST is such an uplifting story, even with some of its sad scenes and episodes. Overall, I think the message has to end up being something positive - even if it ends up being bittersweet, too...

Basically, I think the O6, or one or two of them (Kate and Jack???) are going to get the opportunity to re-do something and they will make a different and better choice the second time around and it will have far-reaching implications...

However, I think that the reason that things happen on LOST and in real life is based on the choices we make - or don't make.

Well, how this idea affects LOST, I think, is that it means that the Losties will end up changing something that has technically already happened. In effect, they will steer things in the other direction and make things good again. ..Basically, I think the O6, or one or two of them (Kate and Jack???) are going to get the opportunity to re-do something and they will make a different and better choice the second time around and it will have far-reaching implications...

Junie- your view on destiny and free will has been argued (and argued against) for centuries. While your belief may be challenged and destiny filled themes implied, I think both sides will ultimately be given merit as Lost concludes....The big debate will remain the big debate and your views will be safe.

I'm completely with your take that ultimately a "change" will be made by the Losties that have far reaching (hopefully good) consequences.

BTW..In response to posts citing "changes" that were made during Des's tt...The rule that TPTB have laid out is that One can't make changes to the Present or Future by Time Traveling to the Past....Obviously Desmond can turn right instead of left and that would be a change in the past, however that turn will not change the Future. If there was a risk of such a change, course correction comes in.

I agree that Ms H's words were truthful and redundant, but not conflicting.

It could be like this too, in regards to what really is important in the 'grand scheme of things' with respect to the future. You know, we've all been considering this very anthropomorphically or even egoistically.
If "course corrections" can occur, or just if they are to be the rule on Lost, then a course correction doesn't necessarily cancel out 'everything' that had happened that wasn't originally supposed to happen. For instance, if Charlie was supposed to die by hitting his head on a rock while trying to catch a migratory bird for Claire, but instead his death was postponed to occur later by a different means, the later death still doesn't make the earlier 'non-death' occurance disappear, it just becomes well essentially insignificant.

So, who is to say what is "significant"? For instance, would the 'unmeant to be death' of one human individual always be something "significant" in the grand scheme of the future reality of the world or of humankind? Personally, I don't think so, not for a moment. Sure, anything that happens, 'anything', that wasn't supposed to happen can cause some degree of change in the future, even if it's only something so simple as giving someone one more day with a loved one who was meant to die a day earlier. In that extra day, one could learn something more about the person who is to die, something that could, if nothing more, leave you with a different perspective of the person after he/she has died. So, if something more significant happens, that could have a great effect on reality, it could effect conditions in the short-term future but then be course corrected before any long-term, more serious effects take place.
Again, for instance, if Desmond would have done something that caused the unmeant to be deaths of Mrs. Hawking and anyone directly connected with her, that doesn't mean that eventually there wouldn't be "course corrections", not to cancel out the deaths but to cancel out any "significant long-term" effects of those deaths.

You see, that's why I think that Mrs. Hawking may have been speaking somewhat in a 'self-preservation' way, trying to make sure that Desmond didn't do anything that could cause 'them all to die", but not necessarily something that would change the future of the world or humankind because "course corrections" will eventually occur to take care of that.

So you see, I think we've been looking at this as if the "unmeant to be" death of any single individual or group of people can be of grand significance and can't be course corrected to make those deaths not have real significance in the grand scheme of future reality. Remember, we are human so generally we get trapped inside anthropomorphic thinking or egoistic thinking as if each one of us is of some grand importance to the future.

Actually Pelegrin, using the example of death may not be the best thing. No one can die by revisiting the past or at the hand of a TT from the future. Why? Because you can't change the future or the present by tting to the past. If someone is alive and well in 2008 you can't got back and kill them in 2007. That would become a paradox. Somehow, your gun wouldn't fire, the individual would be miraculously saved, etc. Anything to keep 2007 on course with 2008.

Somehow, your gun wouldn't fire, the individual would be miraculously saved, etc. Anything to keep 2007 on course with 2008.

Perhaps this is exactly what's happening at certain times: when AL couldn't kill Ben, when Ben (or Widmore) said "we both know you can't kill me" etc. In other words, it's not the Island stopping things, it's paradox. And it wouldn't need to be the person at risk TTing, either. If he'd simply been seen in a known future, that means he can't be killed in the "past".

Just like when we rewatch Enter 77, we know that Tom didn't die - we've seen him in a later show; and when we see Locke fall from a window in a flashback, we know he won't die - we've seen him at a later time.

Actually Pelegrin, using the example of death may not be the best thing. No one can die by revisiting the past or at the hand of a TT from the future. Why? Because you can't change the future or the present by tting to the past. If someone is alive and well in 2008 you can't got back and kill them in 2007. That would become a paradox. Somehow, your gun wouldn't fire, the individual would be miraculously saved, etc. Anything to keep 2007 on course with 2008.

I agree with you, lostorfound, about changing the past. However, I was talking about changing the future, future outcomes or destiny. If someone can know what is going to happen and then can effect things in a way to either prevent it from happening or alter the way in which things are going to happen, then they can in essence change the future. Now, what I was also saying is that if course correction takes place that doesn't necessarily cancel out what changes were made but instead ultimately makes those changes not have any long-term significant effect. If Charlie was meant to die by hitting his head on a rock while trying to catch a bird beside some rocks near the beach then in fact that specific death was changed by Desmond's interference, but ultimately Desmond's interference didn't have any long-term effect because through course correction Charlie's death eventually occurred. So again, I think it could be something even greater than a postponed death of one individual; why couldn't it be the 'unmeant to be' death of several people, for instance, and whatever effect those people would have had would then have to happen through other means to eventually "course correct" the full future reality. Of course, in such a case, the course correction process would likely have to be more elaborate but it could conceivably be done.

Perhaps this is exactly what's happening at certain times: when AL couldn't kill Ben, when Ben (or Widmore) said "we both know you can't kill me" etc. In other words, it's not the Island stopping things, it's paradox. And it wouldn't need to be the person at risk TTing, either. If he'd simply been seen in a known future, that means he can't be killed in the "past".

Just like when we rewatch Enter 77, we know that Tom didn't die - we've seen him in a later show; and when we see Locke fall from a window in a flashback, we know he won't die - we've seen him at a later time.I wondered if something like this was going on with Ben, Alex and Keamy. Did Ben see or experience a future event and date that Alex was alive for, so it meant (to him) that Keamy wouldn't kill her. Then, when Keamy killed her, it created a paradox of some kind...

Just like when we rewatch Enter 77, we know that Tom didn't die - we've seen him in a later show; and when we see Locke fall from a window in a flashback, we know he won't die - we've seen him at a later time.

Sorry, kitdavis, but what does Tom have to do with Enter 77, and how does it show that Tom doesn't die? Am I forgetting something?
100%
Actually Pelegrin, using the example of death may not be the best thing. No one can die by revisiting the past or at the hand of a TT from the future. Why? Because you can't change the future or the present by tting to the past. If someone is alive and well in 2008 you can't got back and kill them in 2007. That would become a paradox. Somehow, your gun wouldn't fire, the individual would be miraculously saved, etc. Anything to keep 2007 on course with 2008.

lostorfound, you got me thinking about something. Ok, I said that I agreed with you, that you can't change the past because you would create a paradox, as you said, killing someone in the past who is alive in the present. However, if we take my point about course correction a bit further then perhaps there would be a way. Again, my point is that course correction seems to over look the small details that ultimately have no long-term or significant effect; so Charlie didn't die yesterday, he dies tomorrow, just to simplify, and he doesn't die by an arrow to the throat but by drowning. But as I asked in the post above, who is to say what is "significant" and what ultimately needs to be "course corrected"? If a supposed future "reality" can be reestablished by one or a series of course corrections, then which are the significant parts of that future that need to be reestablished, and would everything, every detail, that transpired because of the "interference" need to somehow be wiped out?

So, applying this to changing the past, and let's use your "death" as the example. If someone can go back and kill someone in the past, would that person who was killed absolutely need to be dead in the present? If the altered past event is left unknown to the present, then ultimately "course correction" would only need to 'eventually', through a series of events, cancel out all that that individual had effected during his lifetime following his "interfered" death. The course correction might even, or logically continue into the future after the individuals death in the present. Logically, his death in the present would be almost immediate in order that he would not effect things any more and thus require even more course corrections, unless of course his own future life would cancel out, in some way, many of the effects he had had earlier since the time of his interfered death.

Really, once you enter a concept of "course correction" into the equation, everything then depends on how far you take it. Immediate course correction? Course correction of all things, significant or insignificant? Course correction through a series of correcting events or only a simple one time correction? Would the life or death of one indivdual always be considered as "significant" enough to necessitate course correction?

What do you think?


Another case:
If I go back into the past and kill someone on an island, someone who still until the present hasn't had any influence on the outside world since his time of arriving on the island but someone who would have an effect on the outside world right around the time or soon after the time I decided to go back and kill him, then in effect I won't have changed anything significant in the present, or thing that happened leading to the present, but I will have changed what was about to happen in the future.
Again, I see the paradox being avoided by the present not being aware of the change in the past.

Sorry, kitdavis, but what does Tom have to do with Enter 77, and how does it show that Tom doesn't die? Am I forgetting something?

Doh! I meant Patchy! When Locke pushes Patchy through the sound barrier, we thought he was dead the first time we saw it. If we saw that after seeing TTLG, then we'd know he didn't die from the fence.

Imagine for a moment that you watched the whole series backwards - the finale first, ending with the Pilot. One day we'll be able to do that, but not yet. The future (episodes) are not written yet, they're not set in stone. Some are, though. As of this moment, the first four seasons have been set out and can't be changed (ignoring the little changes for the DVDs). I think this is the sort of thing TPTB meant when they said the present and future won't change.

I hope this makes sense, it finally does to me.

I wondered if something like this was going on with Ben, Alex and Keamy. Did Ben see or experience a future event and date that Alex was alive for, so it meant (to him) that Keamy wouldn't kill her. Then, when Keamy killed her, it created a paradox of some kind...

Interesting thought, Juniebun. It did seem that Ben was convinced she wouldn't be killed.

Would the life or death of one indivdual always be considered as "significant" enough to necessitate course correction?

What do you think?

If that individual is to be killed by a tt to the past, die during a trip to the past, or face death before his/her destined time to do so, yes, cc would interefere and "disallow" this person to die or be killed.

If that individual is to be killed by a tt to the past, die during a trip to the past, or face death before his/her destined time to do so, yes, cc would interefere and "disallow" this person to die or be killed.

I like that, lostorfound, because it relates somewhat to our "lost moments of death", in the sense that if you miss your moment of death then how can you have a second "moment of death".

However, let's try to keep the Past separate from the Future. Would one individual's unmeant to happen death in the future necessarily be significant enough to require a course correction to prevent it from happening? Or could the course correction simply resolve any potential changes that that death would cause, without actually creating another change which would prevent the death from happening?

Now, about interfering and causing a death in the past that hadn't happened. What if somehow the inferred death in the past could be done while at the same moment in the present the person is being killed as well. Like the two deaths happening simultaneously but at different times.... haha, it sounds weird? And then, just as I suggested, course correction events take over in order to change all of the effects that that person would have had since the moment of his death in the past. It would obviously have to be a change in the past that would somehow be manageble in some way to course correct so that the grand scheme of reality eventually comes back on course.

.

Really, once you enter a concept of "course correction" into the equation, everything then depends on how far you take it. Immediate course correction? Course correction of all things, significant or insignificant? Course correction through a series of correcting events or only a simple one time correction? Would the life or death of one indivdual always be considered as "significant" enough to necessitate course correction?

What do you think?
.

Here's my take on the whole business of course correction. It all has to do with when the present actually is. Take for example the flashforward where Ben and Jack are next to Locke's coffin. This is not actually the future. It's a past event we haven't been shown yet. It's a peek into the recent past from an unknown present (I'd speculate 2010).

Course correction requires a consistency between cause and effect in the present.

Living people in the present are essentially immortal as we view this looped universe of LOST. Like Charles Widmore. Ben can't kill him because he's alive in the present.

So let's take the Michael example. Michael had always died in this past we are seeing.
In this sense, the Island/Jacob was able to manipulate the manner of his death the same way Desmond manipulated Charlie's demise. So it let him die.

However, an inserted cause in the past (by a TT'er) will be corrected to have no effect in the present. So it doesn't matter that Desmond was hit with a cricket bat on one iteration and wasn't hit in the other. As long as it doesn't create a paradox (mismatch of cause and effect) to the present, it has no bearing.

Clearly something happened that changed things, but that's not important to get into right now.

The brilliance in the device is that we have no idea what the present is.
And if past events are unknown, then we can't claim a paradox because we have no idea if it mismatches with the present effects. We just have no idea. They can write all the causes they want in the past. If we don't know the effect either, then it's a great storytelling device.

This has to be the final iteration. So we won't see them go back and change something in seasons 1 thru 4, all along we are seeing them change iterations that we will never see, resulting in one final version of events. So it keeps the present in the dark and it makes THIS past, the final version of events. It also establishes the show, as is, as concrete.

This is a brilliant idea, I hope they are actually using this.

I don't think we are going to see Jack wake up in the jungle to end the series, like a loop. There are loops, yes but they become set in stone as they are shown. No do-overs. This is the final go at it. Course correction in this sense, as a writer, means you can go wherever you see fit as long as you don't create a paradox in the narrative.

Dead Ray was always dead. So who cares if his body was perceived to show up before he had died. You don't even need course correction in this instance. People who aren't living in the present, just need to die in the past. Who cares exactly how, when or where they die as long as they show up dead in the present?

What is the present exactly? It will be the point where it all started but it will move past that point in this go around, because someone will have changed the actual future.

Here's my take on the whole business of course correction. It all has to do with when the present actually is. Take for example the flashforward where Ben and Jack are next to Locke's coffin. This is not actually the future. It's a past event we haven't been shown yet. It's a peek into the recent past from an unknown present (I'd speculate 2010).

This has to be the final iteration. So we won't see them go back and change something in seasons 1 thru 4, all along we are seeing them change iterations that we will never see, resulting in one final version of events. So it keeps the present in the dark and it makes THIS past, the final version of events. It also establishes the show, as is, as concrete.

This is a brilliant idea, I hope they are actually using this.

This, IMO, is a brilliant idea as well, Thunderstorm.


I don't think we are going to see Jack wake up in the jungle to end the series, like a loop. There are loops, yes but they become set in stone as they are shown. No do-overs. This is the final go at it. Course correction in this sense, as a writer, means you can go wherever you see fit as long as you don't create a paradox in the narrative.

What is the present exactly? It will be the point where it all started but it will move past that point in this go around, because someone will have changed the actual future.My question is this...Was there an event, possibly in our subjective future (as the viewer) that caused the time loops to "open up" for possible "correction" in the first place? I've been thinking that the iterations may have begun due to a "glitch" in the system, a one time event, either random or planned, where the special properties of the island allowed time travel to occur, thus setting up a loop of possible iterations which will end in some way as the loop is finally closed for good. Another possibility is that these "possible loops" occur all the time, and we are just being given an inside view of how the world looks from the perspective of it's "mirror twin". Does any of this make sense, or is it just time for bed?

This has to be the final iteration. So we won't see them go back and change something in seasons 1 thru 4, all along we are seeing them change iterations that we will never see, resulting in one final version of events. So it keeps the present in the dark and it makes THIS past, the final version of events. It also establishes the show, as is, as concrete.

This is a brilliant idea, I hope they are actually using this.

Oh, I think they are. And so the trick becomes figuring out the previous iterations, the iterations which have been rewritten or "covered up" so to speak. Little clues have been littered across the whole series to help us reconstruct the layers beneath the final cut.

Like, in Pilot Part 2, Sayid is saying that Danielle's message is on a loop, that it's the same message over and over and over again. But, Sayid is wrong. Danielle's message on that loop changes in each iteration. Most people don't recognize it, because they don't speak French, but the message keeps changing. And it's not a frivolous or non-canonical message, either, as it mentions The Black Rock - a confirmed reference within the story itself.

Another neat metaphor for this process is shown to us in Fire+Water. In Charlie first Dream/FB, he's playing the piano and his father interjects with the comment, "You need a trade." The father is a butcher, but he's chopping up dolls as well as meat. It's not unlike the infamous Butcher Cover from the Beatles' album "Yesterday and Today." That album originally depicted the Beatles amidst chopped up dolls and meat, but the public outcry against it led Capitol Records to "cover it up" with a "nice" picture.

Look at the way Kate reacts to Jack when they "first meet" in Pilot Part 1. The emotional content of that scene can be read in more than one way. Sure, it could be read as them meeting for the first time, and Kate is in shock. But look at the way Kate looks at Jack. She is sad. It's like she knows that Jack has done something in the future, made some sort of sacrifice, and that this may be the final iteration in which she'll get to be with him.


Mosaic Iterations

Thunderstorm, while this may be the final iteration, I don't think that everything we've seen has been from the final layer. In many instances, the characters are doing exactly what they've done before, and I think in many of those instances, we are being shown "prior iterations." We might as be shown the final iteration, for the physical content of those scenes would match up, but seeing the earlier iteration is intriguing for the emotional continuity of the past.

Again, I think we are given clues as to "when" we are seeing. Take Kate, for example. At times, she seems much less mature and developed from her presence early in Season 1. I think this is because we are being shown an earlier iteration, but one which did not change. Sometimes, it looks like Kate's freckles are practically non-existent in these scenes. Each of the characters may have a different "tell" in this respect - like Charlie's loop tape being on his left (later iteration) rather than his right (early iteration), or Jack's "salt" in his beard (later iteration) keying us in to which "version" we are seeing.

If this is the final iteration, I wonder if the end of the show will show us how they "close the loop" to keep it from repeating, or at least from changing. Or... will they leave it open-ended, to give us the opportunity of running through it one or more times to "play" with the ending? Or might they show us an "original" iteration, one which shows just how much has changed? How about a final shot of the interior of Flight 815 as it's taking off, with Christian in seat 23A, Susan Lloyd on the flight with her son Walt, Liam and his DS ring back in the tail section, and Jack Shephard up in the cockpit as the co-pilot?

My question is this...Was there an event, possibly in our subjective future (as the viewer) that caused the time loops to "open up" for possible "correction" in the first place? I've been thinking that the iterations may have begun due to a "glitch" in the system, a one time event, either random or planned, where the special properties of the island allowed time travel to occur, thus setting up a loop of possible iterations which will end in some way as the loop is finally closed for good.

What if the loop was caused when Desmond turned the fail-safe key the first time around? There may have been a completely different set of circumstances then, like that Flight 815 didn't crash that time or it had a completely different group of passengers. He tt's back to '96 and fails to change things, but maybe the idea that he needs to change things stays in the back of his '96 mind.

Keep in mind that the model for Desmond is Odysseus, who was absent from Penelope 10 years in the Trojan War and another 12 (I think) for displeasing Poseidon. Desmond hasn't been gone long enough, unless he's been looping for far longer. Odysseus was the key agent for change in the Illiad. He broke the stalemate in the war by coming up with the Trojan horse.

Also, Desmond was in a good position to trigger various changes in the loops, like clueing Widmore in on the island. Ms. Hawking and the Brother from the monastery could be charged with keeping him from doing too much damage, or for some reason they could be preventing him from fixing the loop. If beings like Ms. Hawking exist because of the loop, then the "us" in "all of us will die" could apply to them alone. Maybe the black/white choice is between continuing the loop and breaking it.

while this may be the final iteration, I don't think that everything we've seen has been from the final layer. In many instances, the characters are doing exactly what they've done before, and I think in many of those instances, we are being shown "prior iterations."

But the mosiac would be created like overpainting an existing picture, but only the parts of the picture that change each time. Sometimes the old picture bleeds through the changes (whispers?) It also reminds me of the red paint in Desmond's apartment. Red's a good choice to avoid bleed-through.

But who is making the changes? It is internal agents, like Desmond, Jacob or Alpert? External agents, like Abaddon? Or is it just the universe working things out? Maybe the real import of Ms. Hawking's explanation is that for the most part, Losties are fairly powerless to make major changes, because the universe keeps self-correcting their attempts.

Again, I think we are given clues as to "when" we are seeing. Take Kate, for example. At times, she seems much less mature and developed from her presence early in Season 1. I think this is because we are being shown an earlier iteration, but one which did not change. Sometimes, it looks like Kate's freckles are practically non-existent in these scenes. Each of the characters may have a different "tell" in this respect - like Charlie's loop tape being on his left (later iteration) rather than his right (early iteration), or Jack's "salt" in his beard (later iteration) keying us in to which "version" we are seeing.

I love this idea, but is there any thread or site where these are documented? There'd have to be a production paper trail here, like instructions to make-up artists to add Kate's freckles or salt up Jack's beard.

What if the loop was caused when Desmond turned the fail-safe key the first time around? There may have been a completely different set of circumstances then, like that Flight 815 didn't crash that time or it had a completely different group of passengers. He tt's back to '96 and fails to change things, but maybe the idea that he needs to change things stays in the back of his '96 mind.

Strangeness was going on on that Island long before Desmond showed up.


But the mosiac would be created like overpainting an existing picture, but only the parts of the picture that change each time. Sometimes the old picture bleeds through the changes (whispers?) It also reminds me of the red paint in Desmond's apartment. Red's a good choice to avoid bleed-through.

Oooh, I like that about the Whispers. So, our Series is a like a giant long mosaic mural. The parts of the picture that change in subsequent iterations get "covered over," while the parts that stay the same in that iteration stay "intact" as they were originally painted. If something really significant changes, it may "bleed through" as a form of Strangeness - like, the Dreams may be windows into experiences from previous iterations (even from other people), while the Visions of Dead People might be "recordings" of people who actually were there on the Island in a previous iteration, but are no longer there because of certain time-dysfunctions.


But who is making the changes? It is internal agents, like Desmond, Jacob or Alpert? External agents, like Abaddon? Or is it just the universe working things out? Maybe the real import of Ms. Hawking's explanation is that for the most part, Losties are fairly powerless to make major changes, because the universe keeps self-correcting their attempts.

Everyone is making changes, and I suspect every conceivable way of making a change through some sort of time-travel is being explored in Lost. In other words, Lost doesn't adhere to a single version of time-travel, but every version of time-travel!


I love this idea, but is there any thread or site where these are documented? There'd have to be a production paper trail here, like instructions to make-up artists to add Kate's freckles or salt up Jack's beard.

We may not be privy to such instructions; however, we do have the "data" as far as what we see in the episodes. That's part of the puzzle, in a sense, trying to figure out what the "tells" are.

Strangeness was going on on that Island long before Desmond showed up.

Do you mean that the looping will explain, and end up being the source of, the island's strangeness?

I was thinking that the island is unusual in and of itself, but that the conditions for time-loop were created either by the incident or DI's efforts to patch over its aftermath. Then Desmond triggered it.

On the other hand, if this isn't the case, then Desmond's changes still may ripple out as he entangles others, like Faraday, into the loop. If Faraday does end up in the 70's DI, as the Comicon video suggests,then who knows how far back the ripples have spread.

Another possibility is that each iteration of turning the fail-safe key sends Desmond to a different time. He could have affected a lot more than we have been shown. We still don't know why he disobeyed orders in the Royal Marines.

Oooh, I like that about the Whispers. So, our Series is a like a giant long mosaic mural. The parts of the picture that change in subsequent iterations get "covered over," while the parts that stay the same in that iteration stay "intact" as they were originally painted. If something really significant changes, it may "bleed through" as a form of Strangeness - like, the Dreams may be windows into experiences from previous iterations (even from other people), while the Visions of Dead People might be "recordings" of people who actually were there on the Island in a previous iteration, but are no longer there because of certain time-dysfunctions.

I like this idea, too. It could explain so much. Maybe Miles talks to previous versions of living people, not dead people. His talent is like an art restorer, looking for the original picture under the layers.

Switching analogies, It's also like filming a tv show or movie. If the first take is okay, it is only shot once. But sometimes you need several takes and, eventually, because of storyline changes or someone screwed up, retakes. But you don't re-shoot everything, which leads to the possibility of real continuity "errors", like Kate's freckles, Charlie's tape, ... ah, and the picture frames. I finally get where you were going with that now, jane_eire. :biggrin:

I don't mean this as Dr. Suds means it, but as an analogy only. The characters are never consciously aware of the looping, not entirely, but subconciously their knowledge of previous iterations is revealed by their emotional reactions and the occasional thoughtless, off-the-cuff comment.

SAWYER: Well, it's about time.
KATE: For what?
SAWYER: I made this birthday wish 4 years ago.

It makes me think of Claire's S1 amnesia. I thought that was hokey at the time, but it could be a type for the "amnesia" that all the Losties experience iteration to iteration.

Long story short, (and I can explain in greater detail if need be) I think the source of the loops on the Island 'has to go'. To give the series the finality that all of us (including Darlton) want. What does this say about what is causing the phenomenon? It has to be something that could be disposed of without wrecking the Island itself.

So it needs to be something that wasn't always there (examples:ancient astronaut technology that had crashed there in the past/something sent from humans in the future) because if it was always there, it would necessitate that our little Island would have to go away. Not going to happen. It has to be something that can be disposed of to keep our Island a nice little safe haven.

IMO, the two strongest bets are the two examples I used.
Something sent from humans in the future or something that had crashed there in the far past. Whatever THIS thing is, caused the Island's phenomenon and the DI came there to exploit it and began to screw things up.


The characters are never consciously aware of the looping, not entirely, but subconciously their knowledge of previous iterations is revealed by their emotional reactions and the occasional thoughtless, off-the-cuff comment.


I think Ben has become fully aware. This is his only weapon/special power.
100%


Thunderstorm, while this may be the final iteration, I don't think that everything we've seen has been from the final layer. In many instances, the characters are doing exactly what they've done before, and I think in many of those instances, we are being shown "prior iterations." We might as be shown the final iteration, for the physical content of those scenes would match up, but seeing the earlier iteration is intriguing for the emotional continuity of the past.



Sure, there are hints of the iterations themselves, absolutely. It's pretty subtle but there to be digested. I was speaking out of ease of conversation. The moral to the story is, we won't see our precious 'action' erased. And thank Jeebus for that.

Do you mean that the looping will explain, and end up being the source of, the island's strangeness?

Yup, more or less. But why does the Island confer such a peculiar instantiation of Time? Perhaps the Island doesn't just make our metaphors of Time "real", but all kinds of other metaphors, too.


I was thinking that the island is unusual in and of itself, but that the conditions for time-loop were created either by the incident or DI's efforts to patch over its aftermath. Then Desmond triggered it.

On the other hand, if this isn't the case, then Desmond's changes still may ripple out as he entangles others, like Faraday, into the loop...

I think the time-strangeness of the Island is a "natural" side-effect people would encounter there. Dharma comes in, likely under Widmore's auspices, to "exploit" such unique properties. The "Incident" occurs (I still think The Incident = Jacob) and then the Swan (Desmond) occurs as a corrective. That said, yes, Desmond's time-strangeness may well be unique to Desmond, and extends throughout the story in ripples.


Switching analogies, It's also like filming a tv show or movie. If the first take is okay, it is only shot once. But sometimes you need several takes and, eventually, because of storyline changes or someone screwed up, retakes. But you don't re-shoot everything, which leads to the possibility of real continuity "errors", like Kate's freckles, Charlie's tape, ... ah, and the picture frames. I finally get where you were going with that now, jane_eire. :biggrin:

The aspects of filmmaking and storytelling become a "source" for metaphor which is recursively built into the story itself. It's a peculiar sort of "breach" of the 4th Wall, if you think about it...


I don't mean this as Dr. Suds means it, but as an analogy only. The characters are never consciously aware of the looping, not entirely, but subconciously their knowledge of previous iterations is revealed by their emotional reactions and the occasional thoughtless, off-the-cuff comment.

I don't know, sometimes the characters seem aware and sometimes they don't. Take that first interaction between Kate and Jack in Pilot 1. If both Kate and Jack have "looped" back to that point, it feels like Kate is aware but Jack is not.


It makes me think of Claire's S1 amnesia. I thought that was hokey at the time, but it could be a type for the "amnesia" that all the Losties experience iteration to iteration.

Ethan may have delivered memory-suppression drugs to Claire to stabilize her condition until the baaaybeee could be delivered. Maybe Ethan is a Good Guy!


Long story short, (and I can explain in greater detail if need be) I think the source of the loops on the Island 'has to go'. To give the series the finality that all of us (including Darlton) want. What does this say about what is causing the phenomenon? It has to be something that could be disposed of without wrecking the Island itself.

Who says everyone wants it to end? Maybe the "end" of the series will suggest eternal looping instead?


I think Ben has become fully aware. This is his only weapon/special power.

He thought he was quite adept until things went South after the arrival of Keamy.


Sure, there are hints of the iterations themselves, absolutely. It's pretty subtle but there to be digested. I was speaking out of ease of conversation. The moral to the story is, we won't see our precious 'action' erased. And thank Jeebus for that.

Not the precious action, just certain precious assumptions...

I think Ben has become fully aware. This is his only weapon/special power.

Well, maybe not his only weapon. He's still resourceful, manipulative and knows how to push peoples' buttons even when flying blind. But I agree that he retains his memory from loop to loop.
100%
Ethan may have delivered memory-suppression drugs to Claire to stabilize her condition until the baaaybeee could be delivered. Maybe Ethan is a Good Guy!

They made Ethan out to be such a heavy in S1 that it is definitely possible. Claire specifically called out that she couldn't remember anything after the flight, which would mean she had forgotten any iterations as well.

Could awareness of the multiple iterations cause the mother's bodies to think that they aren't pregnant anymore and attack the fetus? But I remember them describing it the other way, that the mothers were dying and the fetuses were healthy.

If Ethan knew what was going on with the pregnancies, did Ben already know as well and continued the deception to keep Juliet on the island?

Or might they show us an "original" iteration, one which shows just how much has changed? How about a final shot of the interior of Flight 815 as it's taking off, with Christian in seat 23A, Susan Lloyd on the flight with her son Walt, Liam and his DS ring back in the tail section, and Jack Shephard up in the cockpit as the co-pilot?

I've long wondered whether Darlton were being cute when they used to say that Jack was supposed to die in the Pilot episode...not that Matthew Fox was only contracted to appear in one episode, but that Jack Shepard was supposed to die - because in a previous time loop, he was the pilot (or co-pilot), and he died then.

Who says everyone wants it to end? Maybe the "end" of the series will suggest eternal looping instead?

He thought he was quite adept until things went South after the arrival of Keamy.


Re:the Keamy thing, absolutely something changed. Ben's reaction to Naomi arriving was...curious. The "Black Swan" event has probably already happened, this final iteration will see those 'unexpected' changes. Though the audience is 'in the dark' or 'none the wiser' as to what changed exactly, Ben wouldn't be. So he's still 'aware' in that sense. Safe to say for example, Alex had never died in a previous iteration. That's my take on it anyways.

I have a few arguments against an eternal loop, the first of which I think follows the established logic closely. It's the same reason they don't want to change something that happened in Episode #XYZ. There has to be a sense of finality about events or you are undoing your own 'hard fought for' tapestry. The stakes, the stakes, the stakes. With an eternal loop there is no finality at all. You, as a viewer, would have every expectation that everything you've just invested in for six years and 114 episodes could be undone by something else on the next 'go' around.

Also you have the originality of such an ending coming under scrutiny. The Dark Tower was cited as a huge influence on the show, would they lift that ending directly? Sure there is precedent for 'borrowing' ideas among entertainment and artistic mediums. Among all the paths they could go, they choose one that is ever-so predictable? The whole idea to shoot down loops (as they did in an interview that I can try and find if need be) was to tell the viewer "we lied about time travel because we had to, but trust us, the stakes are for real". They also shot down the purgatory and mind experiment/snowglobe ideas under the same umbrella. Could they be lying again? Well, yes, they are surely lying about loops but not about the stakes.

Then you have the idea of changing the future. That seems to be the #1 goal developing (at least in my mind). That a change to the "future" will effectuate a change that brings us viewers to a certain place. An eternal loop, clearly to me, is an admission that nothing had actually changed. You've got to establish what the object is of an eternal loop. Each idea that I could propose for an eternal loop from sheer cruel irony (Sisyphus) to a continuation of wonderment all have tremendous downsides with respect to the whole picture. I don't have a preference, wherever they are headed, I would guess would be entertaining enough to hang in there for 34 more episodes. Just using some Occam's Razor here by assuming the shoes of the creators and how they will view not only their creation and legacy but how viewers and TV executives would react. DVD sales are a factor, like it or not.

Lastly and on the same note of 'finality', there is something to be said for preserving that artistic legacy/fictitious universe/mythology. To leave that door open so that some other media vultures would come in and be able to sink it's teeth into is a hideous thought. For something like predictably lame movie off-shoots or inevitable spin-offs. This is not George Lucas having an empirical ownership over these ideas. As far as I understand, ABC studios owns this boat. And as soon as LOST wraps, Cuse, Lindelof, Bender, etc. aren't going to have their hand in this creative pie any longer. Dear God, put a lid on it so they can't get to it! I can see it now, The Dharma Initiative starring Lorenzo Lamas premiering on ABC in 2011. Maybe I am wrong about how the ownership of such ideas could be tampered with but it's still the same idea if I am Damon Lindelof. I don't want people messing with my baby. An open ended "conclusion" begs for it.

Re:the Keamy thing, absolutely something changed. Ben's reaction to Naomi arriving was...curious. The "Black Swan" event has probably already happened, this final iteration will see those 'unexpected' changes. Though the audience is 'in the dark' or 'none the wiser' as to what changed exactly, Ben wouldn't be. So he's still 'aware' in that sense. Safe to say for example, Alex had never died in a previous iteration. That's my take on it anyways.


I think Alex did die in previous iterations... but she died from getting pregnant. That's why Ben is so obsessed with fixing the pregnancy problem, that and it stems from his own self loathing from having killed his own mother with his birth. I think he thought he had staved off the death from pregnancy, but then something else got her.

I'm still not sure what the "he changed the rules" comment means though...

Like, in Pilot Part 2, Sayid is saying that Danielle's message is on a loop, that it's the same message over and over and over again. But, Sayid is wrong. Danielle's message on that loop changes in each iteration. Most people don't recognize it, because they don't speak French, but the message keeps changing. And it's not a frivolous or non-canonical message, either, as it mentions The Black Rock - a confirmed reference within the story itself.

Wow, I had no idea about this. I can't wait for Rousseau's back story...maybe we'll be able to piece together a reason for the changes in the transmission.


How about a final shot of the interior of Flight 815 as it's taking off, with Christian in seat 23A, Susan Lloyd on the flight with her son Walt, Liam and his DS ring back in the tail section, and Jack Shephard up in the cockpit as the co-pilot?...John and Helen returning from their honeymoon in Australia?...Or perhaps Hurley and his dad on the way back from a fishing trip off the Great Barrier Reef?...Scott and Steve discussing their idea for a new screenplay about an airplane that crashes on a tropical island?


Keep in mind that the model for Desmond is Odysseus, who was absent from Penelope 10 years in the Trojan War and another 12 (I think) for displeasing Poseidon...Odysseus was the key agent for change in the Illiad. He broke the stalemate in the war by coming up with the Trojan horse.

I had forgotten about this connection. Perhaps Des will play a role in setting up the return of the O6, Trojan horse style.


I think the source of the loops on the Island 'has to go'. To give the series the finality that all of us (including Darlton) want. What does this say about what is causing the phenomenon? It has to be something that could be disposed of without wrecking the Island itself.

So it needs to be something that wasn't always there (examples:ancient astronaut technology that had crashed there in the past/something sent from humans in the future) because if it was always there, it would necessitate that our little Island would have to go away. Not going to happen.

I agree with you, Thunderstorm, that this should be the final iteration in the loop. While the possibility of a technology sent from the future has grown on me a bit, I'm still not convinced that the time looping was caused by anything other than an accidental glitch...the chance opening of a wormhole connecting our world with an island in it's mirror world (with someone along for the ride, of course). Perhaps the "looping" exists because this connection remains open, and will end when the connection is closed, allowing each world to go on its own merry way. Although I don't think that Desmond had a role in causing the time looping, I'm on board with those who feel that he may be the Black Swan that is necessary to insure that the loop is eventually closed for good.

The most interesting subplot in LOST, IMO, involves the factions vying to control the island's power, and I'm guessing that as the true motivations of each of each group become more clear, we will understand why it's so important that this be the final iteration. I get the feeling that some may be using the time loops to their advantage, essentially benefiting from multiple "do-overs", whereas others are affected by the loops in a more passive way, perhaps unaware that the loops even exist.


Ethan may have delivered memory-suppression drugs to Claire to stabilize her condition until the baaaybeee could be delivered. Maybe Ethan is a Good Guy!

Woo Hoo Ethan...You Go, Dude!! :hypocrit:


Re:the Keamy thing, absolutely something changed. Ben's reaction to Naomi arriving was...curious. The "Black Swan" event has probably already happened, this final iteration will see those 'unexpected' changes. Though the audience is 'in the dark' or 'none the wiser' as to what changed exactly, Ben wouldn't be. So he's still 'aware' in that sense. Safe to say for example, Alex had never died in a previous iteration. That's my take on it anyways.

If Desmond is the Black Swan, and his turning of the failsafe key marked the beginning of the final iteration of the loop (a loop which Ben had no ability to access)...this could explain why Ben said "he changed the rules". Although I don't think Charles could have known that Desmond would become the Black Swan, perhaps Ben believed that Charles set up the yacht race with some inside information about Desmond's future role on the island.

I have a few arguments against an eternal loop, the first of which I think follows the established logic closely. It's the same reason they don't want to change something that happened in Episode #XYZ. There has to be a sense of finality about events or you are undoing your own 'hard fought for' tapestry. The stakes, the stakes, the stakes. With an eternal loop there is no finality at all.

That depends, as you say, on the stakes - and who is in the loop. If the players in the loop have a stake in keeping the loop fixed, it becomes eternal and unchanging. I think it's rather Nietzschean, an Eternal Return which is always the same. For the players to engage in such a loop would represent an amazing affirmation of the life experienced therein.
Shannon: The guy from Saint Tropez, he had this kid, a real snot, who hated me. His name was Laurent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_series). He watched this movie over and over and over again, everyday, all day, the way kids do, 900 times. It was the cartoon about fish...

Wow, I had no idea about this. I can't wait for Rousseau's back story...maybe we'll be able to piece together a reason for the changes in the transmission.
Iteration 17294530 : "Si qui que ce soit puisse entendre ceci, ils sont morts. Veuillez nous aider. Je vais essayer d'aller jusqu'au Rocher Noir. Il les a tués. Il les a tués tous."

Iteration 17294531 : "Il est dehors. il est dehors et Brennan a pris les clés. Veuillez nous aider. Ils sont morts. Ils sont tous morts. Aidez-nous. Ils sont morts."

Iteration 17294532 : "Il est dehors. Il est dehors et Brennan a pris les clés. Veuillez nous aider. Ils sont morts. Ils sont tous morts. Aidez-nous. Ils sont morts."

Iteration 17294533 : "Ils sont tous morts. Aidez-nous. Ils sont morts. Si qui que ce soit puisse entendre ceci"

Iteration 17294534 : "Il est dehors. Veuillez nous aider. Veuillez nous aider."

Iteration 17294535 : "Si qui que ce soit puisse entendre ceci, je vais essayer d'aller jusqu'au Rocher Noir. Veuillez nous aider. Ils sont tous morts. Ils sont morts. Il les a tués. Ils les a tués tous. Je vais essayer d'aller jusqu'au Rocher Noir."


Translation:
Iteration 17294530 : "If anybody can hear this, they are dead. Please help us. I'll try to make it to the Black Rock. It killed them. It killed them all."

Iteration 17294531 : "It is outside. It is outside and Brennan took the keys. Please help us. They are dead. They are all dead. Help us. They are dead."

Iteration 17294532 : "It is outside. It is outside and Brennan took the keys. Please help us. They are dead. They are all dead. Help us. They are dead."

Iteration 17294533 : "They are all dead. Help us. They are dead. If anybody can hear this —"

Iteration 17294534 : "It is outside. Please help us. Please help us!"

Iteration 17294535 : "If anybody can hear this, I'll try to make it to the Black Rock. Please help us ! They are all dead. They are dead. It killed them. It killed them all. I'll try to make it to the Black Rock."

Who is Brennan, and why did he take the keys? What are the keys? Is this Brennan somehow related to Kate's friend who made that time capsule back when they were kids, a guy named Tom Brennan?



...John and Helen returning from their honeymoon in Australia?...Or perhaps Hurley and his dad on the way back from a fishing trip off the Great Barrier Reef?...Scott and Steve discussing their idea for a new screenplay about an airplane that crashes on a tropical island? Well, Helen didn't take the ring, so I don't think she was originally on Flight 815. Likewise, there's no evidence that Hurley's dad was on the flight, and I don't think Scott and Steve were screenwriters, were they?

However, Jack has been mirror-twinned with the Pilot, Charlie and Liam have been incessantly mirror-twinned, Christian has been ghosted on the Island (suggesting he was there before) and Susan Lloyd died suddenly and mysteriously just a week before Flight 815 took off.

Mirror-twinning indicates substitution, changelings. Jack was originally supposed to die in the Pilot episode, but he was mirror-twinned with the pilot who took his place and bit the bullet for him. So I think Jack was originally in the cockpit. Likewise, Liam has done everything in his power to get Charlie to take his place on the flight. Liam wasn't up to the task of playing Savior, so he introduces Charlie to heroin, steals his piano, and gives him the Ring - because, as he says, the Ring has to stay in the family.

Susan Lloyd died mysterious just before the Flight because she was on the Island, had a flashback, and made a different Choice to avoid getting on the Flight. On the Island, she may have been Smoked; off the Island, she dies, and Paradox is avoided.

Christian, he's quite the interesting character. He's been to the Island before. On Flight 815. And he got ghosted when Jack went back and turned him in to the hospital board, leading him to the drinking binge that got him killed.

Well, that's how I see it these days.

...Dead Ray was always dead. So who cares if his body was perceived to show up before he had died. You don't even need course correction in this instance. People who aren't living in the present, just need to die in the past. Who cares exactly how, when or where they die as long as they show up dead in the present?

What is the present exactly? It will be the point where it all started but it will move past that point in this go around, because someone will have changed the actual future.

Yes, I think this is why Ben doesn't seem to care that all the people on the frieghter get killed... because they are already dead. I've look at this line of thinking before, but I don't like it for a couple reasons.
First: Alex wasn't ment to die.. do the rule change would be only kill those already dead?
Second: That would make Dave right. Remember Hurley's friend from Santa Rosa? He told Hurley the way off the Island was by dieing.
Third: I DON"T WANT HURLEY TO BE DEAD! I don't want ALL of them to be dead. So, if some are alive... who are the dead people... who are the living people?
Juliet left the mainland alive... unless Richard actually killed her?
Juliet should still be alive. Why can't see get off the Island?
Than, the Dharma people in the purge. Was that murder? Or were they already dead and just thought they were living? So, Ben never really killed anyone?

Naah. I hope this isn't the case.

But I too feel we will end up back at the pilot and the "WORK" Christian said his son needed to do was NOT get people OFF the Island, but kill Ben. I think this has all been a test for a few genetically enhanced kids of the Dharma experiment.
I'm sure I'm wrong...dumb theory.

Well, Helen didn't take the ring, so I don't think she was originally on Flight 815. Likewise, there's no evidence that Hurley's dad was on the flight, and I don't think Scott and Steve were screenwriters, were they?

However, Jack has been mirror-twinned with the Pilot, Charlie and Liam have been incessantly mirror-twinned, Christian has been ghosted on the Island (suggesting he was there before) and Susan Lloyd died suddenly and mysteriously just a week before Flight 815 took off.

Hi Jane. The Scott and Steve comment was actually just an ill-fated attempt at humor :confused:, but I appreciate the clarification on your earlier post. I'd never considered that Susan Lloyd may have been on the island previously, and I like the Smokey tie-in.

Hi Jane. The Scott and Steve comment was actually just an ill-fated attempt at humor :confused:, but I appreciate the clarification on your earlier post. I'd never considered that Susan Lloyd may have been on the island previously, and I like the Smokey tie-in.

I don't think your humor met an ill fate at all! I find it quite amusing to think they were writers. ;)

Yes, I think this is why Ben doesn't seem to care that all the people on the frieghter get killed... because they are already dead. I've look at this line of thinking before, but I don't like it for a couple reasons.
First: Alex wasn't ment to die.. do the rule change would be only kill those already dead?
Second: That would make Dave right. Remember Hurley's friend from Santa Rosa? He told Hurley the way off the Island was by dieing.
Third: I DON"T WANT HURLEY TO BE DEAD! I don't want ALL of them to be dead. So, if some are alive... who are the dead people... who are the living people?
Juliet left the mainland alive... unless Richard actually killed her?
Juliet should still be alive. Why can't see get off the Island?
Than, the Dharma people in the purge. Was that murder? Or were they already dead and just thought they were living? So, Ben never really killed anyone?

Naah. I hope this isn't the case.
.

I never said they were all dead. I said those who had died in the past, would need to die again in the past and as far as the present is concerned (the present being the effect of all previous causes) it wouldn't matter if Michael was killed by an explosion in one iteration or killed by an "Other" in another iteration. He's dead all the same.

Obviously, if one would argue this angle, you'd assume there were several people who've lived to the present. The mystery is, which ones?

I never said they were all dead. I said those who had died in the past, would need to die again in the past and as far as the present is concerned (the present being the effect of all previous causes) it wouldn't matter if Michael was killed by an explosion in one iteration or killed by an "Other" in another iteration. He's dead all the same.

Obviously, if one would argue this angle, you'd assume there were several people who've lived to the present. The mystery is, which ones?

Oops, my bad! :redface: Do we get a choice on who survives?
I like Vincent, Hurley, Sayid, Desmond, Kate, Aaron, Sawyer, Juliet, Sun, Jin, Daniel, Charlotte, and Frank.

Who did I miss?

I think Alex did die in previous iterations... but she died from getting pregnant. That's why Ben is so obsessed with fixing the pregnancy problem, that and it stems from his own self loathing from having killed his own mother with his birth. I think he thought he had staved off the death from pregnancy, but then something else got her.

I'm still not sure what the "he changed the rules" comment means though...

Well, obviously we all have different views, it's fun to read other perspectives though.

She may have died in a previous iteration but speculating as such requires you to ponder what "he changed the rules" means. If she had always lived, then you have an answer.

And also, I think we'll find out soon enough why Ben was so interested in finding a cure for the pregnancy problem. He knows he's looping, he's assuming (at the time of recruiting Juliet) that he'll be back for another 'go' and will be able to be cognizant of certain bits of information on that next iteration. So when his wife Annie gets pregnant this time around, he'll be able to magically save her, rather than see her and his child die during childbirth.

The irony (if that is the correct term) is that Ben killed his mother by being born and would kill his wife and child by making her pregnant, would have killed his father and I would further speculate (because it's fun) that he (intentionally or not) kills the woman (Juliet) he has grown to love, who happens to resemble his dead wife Annie (as played by a dark wigged, colored contact lens wearing Elizabeth Mitchell in a future episode) :cool: Ben is the embodiment of the cruel irony. It's why he's such a lovable 'pain in the ___'.

Well, obviously we all have different views, ...

The irony (if that is the correct term) is that Ben killed his mother by being born and would kill his wife and child by making her pregnant, would have killed his father and I would further speculate (because it's fun) that he (intentionally or not) kills the woman (Juliet) he has grown to love, who happens to resemble his dead wife Annie (as played by a dark wigged, colored contact lens wearing Elizabeth Mitchell in a future episode) :cool: Ben is the embodiment of the cruel irony. It's why he's such a lovable 'pain in the ___'.

LOL! Oh, yeah! Some views are ... even more strange than mine! IF you can believe that!

Ben is a cruel irony, but I blame Richard for brainwashing the boy. Who controlled the Smoke Monster BEFORE Ben. This is a question I reallly REALLY REALLY want an answer to.... hopefully this season.
But I do not trust Ms. Hawkings... she is using Desmond. Poor Des, I just hope Penny isn't the Black Swan. Or if she is... she still loves Desmond.

Great posts here everyone! I feel like we're getting quite close to the main "issue" of what's been going on.

Long story short, (and I can explain in greater detail if need be) I think the source of the loops on the Island 'has to go'. To give the series the finality that all of us (including Darlton) want. What does this say about what is causing the phenomenon? It has to be something that could be disposed of without wrecking the Island itself. ...... The moral to the story is, we won't see our precious 'action' erased. And thank Jeebus for that.
I agree that if we are seeing a time loop where everyone has been there/done that before, it does have to come to an end.

If we take our other "time" issue which definately seems to be dealing with tt through wormholes, the closing of a "loop" could be the possible goal. However, we have to consider that there is still some future stake that we first need to discover. Possibly this "stake" is the point before which the loop needs to end.

I think the time-strangeness of the Island is a "natural" side-effect people would encounter there. Dharma comes in, likely under Widmore's auspices, to "exploit" such unique properties. The "Incident" occurs (I still think The Incident = Jacob) and then the Swan (Desmond) occurs as a corrective. That said, yes, Desmond's time-strangeness may well be unique to Desmond, and extends throughout the story in ripples.

You're right about the time-strangeness of the Island Jane. Definately can't ignore that. I agree that the time issue on the Island is a naturally occuring one that exists because of the Island's location (wormhole -wise).

I like the idea that the Incident caused a loop in time.

Still, I think we are still seeing the "time issues", lost time, arriving before leaving, conscious tt etc. apart or during this iteration.



I have a few arguments against an eternal loop, the first of which I think follows the established logic closely. It's the same reason they don't want to change something that happened in Episode #XYZ. There has to be a sense of finality about events or you are undoing your own 'hard fought for' tapestry. The stakes, the stakes, the stakes. With an eternal loop there is no finality at all. You, as a viewer, would have every expectation that everything you've just invested in for six years and 114 episodes could be undone by something else on the next 'go' around.

Great argument! Again, I agree that if we're dealing with a time loop, our Losties are going to end it by the finale of S6.
Then you have the idea of changing the future. That seems to be the #1 goal developing (at least in my mind). That a change to the "future" will effectuate a change that brings us viewers to a certain place.
Agreed again. Something that is about to happen in the near future will need to be prevented. The same act of prevention may very well serve the purpose of ending any "loop" we are seeing.

The most interesting subplot in LOST, IMO, involves the factions vying to control the island's power, and I'm guessing that as the true motivations of each of each group become more clear, we will understand why it's so important that this be the final iteration. I get the feeling that some may be using the time loops to their advantage, essentially benefiting from multiple "do-overs", whereas others are affected by the loops in a more passive way, perhaps unaware that the loops even exist.

That makes good sense. I'm hoping that if we are indeed seeing an iteration of a loop that has played over a few times already, that only the "team leaders" are aware of it. I can see Ben, Widmore, and Richard knowing what's going on. However with the rest of the Losties I'd hope each one is as clueless as the next. I believe it would be a bit convoluted to select only certain Losties as being aware of what's been happening. What we've seen for the past four seasons seems to indicate this being true.

Looks like Ms. Hawking's instructions to Desmond perplexed even Entertainment Weekly's Doc Jensen in his recent analysis:Timecop Granny is something of a paradox. On one hand, she tells Desmond that time can't be altered — that if you try to change the past, Fate will find some way to thwart you. On the other hand, she warns of catastrophic consequences if Desmond doesn't repeat all of his past actions. But if history can't be changed, why the apocalyptic angst? Knowing the producers, my guess this contradiction isn't an inconsistency, but rather exactly the question we should be asking.
From http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20251960,00.html

I've been wondering about Mrs. Hawking a lot lately, AZJeepDude. Exactly what you said. I keep thinking if Mr. Red Shoes guy is going to die no matter what, why does Mrs. Hawking care what Desmond does? Why does she try to influence him when it's not necessary - according to the rules behind Mr. Red Shoe's death...

I think that she's worried about something...something that CAN be changed, but with bad consequences...paradoxes...etc., etc...

Maybe this is all a case of 'you can change the means, but no the end'

The small changes that Desmond made weren't important, as long as the major events still happen.

I too think that Desmond is maybe the only one to change the future, so far, from our losties.

Ms. Hawking's argument is that it is impractical... and ultimately impossible to save another from death.

She also tells us indirectly that the "course-correcting universe" acts retrospectively. It does not undo what the TTer did, it does not prevent the TTer from changing the when and how a person meets their destiny with death, and it must have the ability to simultaneously course correct important events changed by the butterfly effect of the TTer's interference.

Desmond's flashes of the future are interesting also in that by changing the outcome of his visions through intereference, the visions change...
Because changes can be made by intereference in the timeline that take a while to be observed then corrected...I don't think Ms. Hawking trusts that every change will be caught in time by the course-correcting universe. . . or maybe she doesn't know enough to be sure that Desmond will be course-corrected to the island.

I just want to say 'hello' to Doc Jensen as he peruses The Fuselage. :coolorng:
His comment above quoted by AZ sounds like it was ripped from this thread.

Anyhow...I've said it before somewhere in this thread but it doesn't hurt to repeat it.

The reason Hawking seems likes she's giving Desmond useless information is because she is.
And she is serving to tell us, the viewer, what the rules are.

I think Desmond was likely on his way to change something before he met the cricket bat.
I know that's a divisive thought around here, either way Damon and Carlton had to get the rules out to us somehow. What better than in the first time travel episode (FBYE)?

I just want to say 'hello' to Doc Jensen as he peruses The Fuselage. :coolorng:
His comment above quoted by AZ sounds like it was ripped from this thread.

Anyhow...I've said it before somewhere in this thread but it doesn't hurt to repeat it.

The reason Hawking seems likes she's giving Desmond useless information is because she is.
And she is serving to tell us, the viewer, what the rules are.

I think Desmond was likely on his way to change something before he met the cricket bat.
I know that's a divisive thought around here, either way Damon and Carlton had to get the rules out to us somehow. What better than in the first time travel episode (FBYE)?
I suppose that is a possibility, although I'm not convinced. Is there a term for this technique? It is also used elsewhere, such as Jurassic Park. The children are useful in this story as it allows the characters to explain the science. This serves to also explain the science to the audience. Without them, it would be just scientists, and having scientists explain the science to each other would be, well, just dumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(plot_device)

I'm not saying it was her only purpose.
I just think she believed that she needed to tell Desmond those things and it just so happens that it doesn't apply to him. In the meantime, we get the explanation of 'course correction'.

Mrs Hawking as far as I'm concerned is working for Widmore!
She planted all those things in Desmond's mind so as to do exactly as Widmore wants him to do.

Not just anyone would turn the Key. Most likely, most wouldn't. So, how do you get someone to turn the Key? Well, the protocol of pushing the button might help create the psychological environment necessary to prepare one to turn the Key.

wow!!! very good observation :)

But my new working theory is: Ms. Hawking was telling the truth, as far as the
normal universe and its inhabitants are concerned. But Desmond is different, so
she's actually lying to him on a personal level. She's necessary to keep him on
course because for whatever reason the universe can't course correct Desmond
directly.Bingo! Love it!

Desmond is someone that Mrs. Hawking wants and needs to control. To get him to do what she wants and to make the choices in his life that further her agenda. She's trying to influence him, to fool him, into going in the direction (s) that she wants and needs him to go in without telling him specifically that he has the power to change Destiny.

Speaking of Mrs. Hawking, her BLACK EYES freaked me out! Great stuff! Black eyes = black soul?

Oh! Desmond is the Black Swan? I would never have guessed.

;)

Happy Birthday Junie!

:party::HOBirthdaycake::party:

When they first showed her last night, I thought holy crap, she's Daniel's mom. But then Ben showed up and it ruined it. Maybe she still is?

And I second that, Happy Birthday, Junie!!!!

:biggrin:

I have new speculation that she's connected with Ben. And any idea that Ben might be good is slowly fading.

I think in light of last night's episode, she was not lying but misleading

When she says "You Can't change the future, time will course correct" it makes us think it's impossible to change the future because of course correction.


In reality, it seems like the truth is "you can't change the future because IF YOU DO, horrible things will happen".

And then

"IF YOU DO, I will course correct" (and by 'I' I mean Ms. Hawking or any one of these off island people that seem to be connected to Ben and part of a secret society)

Stating it this way, it is not IMPOSSIBLE to alter time if you're 'special' but there are grave consequences to doing so. Those consequences are corrected by a secret society.

If you altered time in such a way that the secret society can not correct it, cataclysmic events occur. And such a situation has occurred and Ben has 70 hours to fix it.

Oh! Desmond is the Black Swan? I would never have guessed. ;)


I think we both came to this conclusion in your rules thread did we not?

Might be time to revisit that thread.

ETA I see it's already been bumped.
Cheers!

Stating it this way, it is not IMPOSSIBLE to alter time if you're 'special' but there are grave consequences to doing so. Those consequences are corrected by a secret society.

If you altered time in such a way that the secret society can not correct it, cataclysmic events occur. And such a situation has occurred and Ben has 70 hours to fix it.

Well, that's how the secret society would spin it. How ironic it would be if the secret society itself was the cause of cataclysmic events, that their very interference led to grave consequences. They may not even be aware of their own role in the horror they are shaping. Perhaps what's needed is for Desmond and the Losties not only to free the Island, but to expose and break up the cabal so that they can no longer abuse their power.

I think we both came to this conclusion in your rules thread did we not?

After the concept was introduced in the latest ARG quite a few people concluded that Desmond could be the Black Swan.

:cool:

That's true, I forgot about the ARG thing. It was so...poorly concluded.

Just going from the original post here... Ms Hawking says that, among other things, if Desmond does not turn the failsafe key, everyone will die.

But now it seems that everyone will die BECAUSE he turned the failsafe key (thereby creating a series of events that "shouldn't" have happened), if the O6 doesn't go back and fix everything.

So I don't really know where I stand on the issue. Either she's full of it, or the writers are selectively ignoring things that have already happened in the show, or none of us knows what's going on.

It would be plausible if Ms Hawking did not realize that Desmond turning the failsafe would cause him to become unstuck in time, therefore able to change events, but from what she said, it seems like she knew the outcome....
makes no sense

Just going from the original post here... Ms Hawking says that, among other things, if Desmond does not turn the failsafe key, everyone will die.

But now it seems that everyone will die BECAUSE he turned the failsafe key (thereby creating a series of events that "shouldn't" have happened), if the O6 doesn't go back and fix everything.

It was saving Charlie that kicked off the "shouldn't have happened" show, IMO, Charlie shouldn't have been alive to unblock comms from The Looking Glass and that's what ultimately led to the O6 leaving.

I've got a new take on that conversation, she was trying to convince Desmond that you can't change the future because she knew what he would become and didn't want him getting involved, seeing as how he is the one person that the "rules" don't apply to, she would want him to maintain the timeline even though he can change whatever he wants.

I just realized that she couldn't have been telling the truth and not realizing that it didn't apply to Desmond. Here's why:

Desmond was already unstuck in time when he was talking to her. How could she not of realized he was different? That something outside the norm was occurring?

Can anyone explain that?

ps: The whole "everyone will die" thing is clearly hyperbole, used to illicit a desired response. This has been said by several other characters on the show, most notably Ben when he was telling the Losties to not contact the freighter. Obviously, they contacted the freighter, and bad stuff happened, but not all of them died as a result.

That's true, I forgot about the ARG thing. It was so...poorly concluded.

A bungled opportunity.

I have to say that Wednesday's revelations actually turned down my expectations for who and what Ms. Hawking is. Consider what would happen if she _is_ Daniel's mother, and if Desmnod finds her as Daniel urged, but only after Des starts another round of time-tripping, and he actually finds her while in the past!

Now, she may well be involved with the island; she might be with Ben, or she might be with Widmore, or she may even be with Hanso/Dharma. (Or some one else entirely!) But if Desmond tells her in the past about what happens to him having been stranded on the island, his relation to Penny Widmore, the button, and all the rest, then everything she knew about Des in "Flashes Before Your Eyes" was merely because Des had already told her about those things!

Then, in FBYE, she'd be sure to be in the shop where Des was to buy the ring. She'd tell Des about how he was supposed to break Penny's heart, and how he was supposed to go to the island, push the button, and turn the failsafe. She'd let him in on some of the "rules," as in how the universe course corrects when they try to change things. Suddenly, Ms. Hawking becomes less-powerful. She's no longer all-knowing; just a significant character, guiding along someone who she knows has a part to play. She may actually make some mistakes, because her knowledge of Desmond's story still has many gaps.

And knowing how important Des was to be, she'd make sure that Br. Campbell had one of his people pick Des up in a time of need, (making sure hie didn't get inconveniently married!) and make sure Des got introduced to Penny Widmore. She could make sure that Libby picked Des up in that coffee shop, and gave him the boat he needed so that he could get to the island.

Suddenly, a lot of ridiculous coincidences start to make sense...

I think Hawking was telling Des the truth as it was at the time. She may be a time-shifter and a keeper of the island but-- as with Ben, Alpert, and even Jacob-- that doesn't mean she knows the future's ultimate outcome. Telling Des that pushing that button was the most important thing he'd ever do, that it would save the world, etc.: all that was true enough at the time. I have a feeling Des will be updating her on all that when he finds her (in our present, not in the past) in his search for Faraday's mother...:)

Nice to be back here after a lapse of many months.

I just re-watched Flashed Before Your Eyes, and I think she was most definitely lying to Desmond.

At the point in time when their conversation takes place (time being a relative term here), Desmond is already unstuck in time and has already performed all the actions she tells him he needs to do. He knows this, and she knows this.

Since she knows this has already occurred -- yet Desmond is there with her in England in the past, she has to know that he is different somehow. She would know that he could possibly make different decisions and screw things up, so she lies to get him to get him to do what he needs to do.
She knows he can alter things, so she has to get him to goto that bar, and get whacked in the head with the cricket bat, so he can jump back to the island.

The only part I don't get is, why would she want him to turn the failsafe key? I think most of us can agree that this is the event that screwed sh*t up, so to speak -- set everything on a path that "wasn't supposed to happen."

The only part I don't get is, why would she want him to turn the failsafe key? I think most of us can agree that this is the event that screwed sh*t up, so to speak -- set everything on a path that "wasn't supposed to happen."

I think turning the key is what made Desmond special, it's a classic superhero origin story, transformed after surviving a massive does of freaky electromagnetic radiation, I'd argue that Desmond is exactly what The DHARMA Initiative were looking for, or trying to create, in the pre-Incident Swan.

I think it was Desmond saving Charlie that started them all on a path that they're not supposed to be on, the O6 were never supposed to leave, and if Charlie died when he was supposed to they never would have.

I think turning the key is what made Desmond special, it's a classic superhero origin story, transformed after surviving a massive does of freaky electromagnetic radiation, I'd argue that Desmond is exactly what The DHARMA Initiative were looking for, or trying to create, in the pre-Incident Swan.

I think it was Desmond saving Charlie that started them all on a path that they're not supposed to be on, the O6 were never supposed to leave, and if Charlie died when he was supposed to they never would have.

Good point... I guess it could make sense (depending who/what Ms Hawking actually represents) that she'd want Desmond to acquire those abilities by turning the key.

Your second point also makes sense in that, if Des had followed Ms Hawking's advice, and not attempted to change ANYTHING, then that may not have happened.
I still hypothesize, however, that, since it was Desmond's turning of the key that alerted Penny (and anyone else who was looking) to the island's location in the first place, it was that event that set everything else in motion.
100%
Actually, going even further back... was it Desmond's accidental crashing of flight 815 that began the series of events that "shouldn't have happened?"

I just re-watched Flashed Before Your Eyes, and I think she was most definitely lying to Desmond.

At the point in time when their conversation takes place (time being a relative term here), Desmond is already unstuck in time and has already performed all the actions she tells him he needs to do. He knows this, and she knows this.

Since she knows this has already occurred -- yet Desmond is there with her in England in the past, she has to know that he is different somehow. She would know that he could possibly make different decisions and screw things up, so she lies to get him to get him to do what he needs to do.
She knows he can alter things, so she has to get him to goto that bar, and get whacked in the head with the cricket bat, so he can jump back to the island.

The only part I don't get is, why would she want him to turn the failsafe key? I think most of us can agree that this is the event that screwed sh*t up, so to speak -- set everything on a path that "wasn't supposed to happen."

I think that it's because Desmond's choice was not whether to turn the failsafe key or not. It was his choice of when to turn it. He could have turned it the first time he missed the hatch countdown, on 9-22-04 when 815 crashed. Given that the hieroglyphics were showing on the countdown, things were flying around the hatch, and he had just taken the key off Kelvin's neck, the logical thing would have been to turn it then. But against logic Desmond entered the numbers and pushed the button instead.

Now, maybe Ms. Hawking thought she was dealing with a Desmond that had turned the key on 9-22-04. Either she didn't know that he was outside the rules or she thought that he that he would be sufficiently isolated on the island that he couldn't make any significant changes. That would have been a much cleaner resolution. Desmond plugs the leak and ends up on the island powerless and vulnerable. The island moves. Flight 815, already broken up, is carried along and lands in the Sunda Trench, killing all on board. Widmore fails to find the island.

Ms. Hawking never says anything about Flight 815 in FBYE. Maybe she can't forsee this possibility. But that's exactly what a "Black Swan" is, after all. So, in this case, she's wouldn't be lying, which jives better with Darlton advocating her explanation of time-travel as reliable.

I thought Ms. Hawking just said Desmond had to push the button...I don't remember her mentioning the failsafe key? ...pushing that button was the greatest thing he would ever do... so she says.

It may be that none of the pre-cogs can see the future unless it has for them become past and they can move around in the past somehow?

Remember what Daniel achieved with Eloise in 1996 because of Desmond...? Daniel didn't send Desmond to speak to his mother the candy maker in Oxford... of course Ms. Hawking will be his mother... and perhaps there is no ontological paradox if Daniel's mother is actually the one who figured out the answer that Daniel gives Desmond to give to himself... can anyone follow this? lol

Simone^ she did mention the Failsafe

To your question, here's my take...if Desmond is changing the past or anything that has already happened, then there will be a logical 'real world' paradox but not a time travel paradox. TT to the past means that Cause>Effect will be mismatched (not it proper order, this is a paradox) but a time travel paradox (or the ontological information paradox) is dealt with by saying that the information showed up before it was created. But it was created. Effect>Cause

So to extend that thought, since Desmond is CTT, and we are dealing with 'information' he might as well have guessed the numbers exactly right. What difference would it make? It's merely a thought in his head.

But now it seems that everyone will die BECAUSE he turned the failsafe key (thereby creating a series of events that "shouldn't" have happened), if the O6 doesn't go back and fix everything.

but from what she said, it seems like she knew the outcome....

and how are they going to know how to get back? Dan is sending Des to find his mother (who for this post I'm assuming is Daniel's mother). This is obviously going to help them and it can only work because Des was there in in 2001 to enter the numbers.

When Des failed to enter the numbers on time, Flight 815 came to the Island.... When 815 arrived the Losties took over and screwed up the number pushing so Des had to turn the key....When Des turned the key, he CTT backwards and met Ms. H. It is also possible that this was when the Kahana was able to "see" the Island.....He then began his "flashes" and got Charlie to flip the switch.....Charlie flipping the switch opened communications and got the Kahana to the Island..........The Kahana brought Dan to the Island and ultimately lead to the wheel turning....The wheel turning helped get Des and the O6 off the Island. It also caused the time tripping we"re seeing.......The time tripping (coupled the Constant) have allowed Dan to send a message off the Island via Des.

IMO we will continue to see everyone getting in place to do a special "something." The same"something" that if not done will cause everyone of us to be dead.

Des's TTing, the dates to which he did so, and those he just happened to find along the way are what sets him up to be the LeftBehinds only chance. The TTis what makes Des special.

The Losties and the Freighter Four all have to be on that Island. Des's actions helped set that up. Ms H made sure of that....They are getting all the pieces in their proper place.

But if Desmond tells her in the past about what happens to him having been stranded on the island, his relation to Penny Widmore, the button, and all the rest, then everything she knew about Des in "Flashes Before Your Eyes" was merely because Des had already told her about those things!

Then, in FBYE, she'd be sure to be in the shop where Des was to buy the ring. She'd tell Des about how he was supposed to break Penny's heart, and how he was supposed to go to the island, push the button, and turn the failsafe. She'd let him in on some of the "rules," as in how the universe course corrects when they try to change things. Suddenly, Ms. Hawking becomes less-powerful. She's no longer all-knowing; just a significant character, guiding along someone who she knows has a part to play.

And knowing how important Des was to be, she'd make sure that Br. Campbell had one of his people pick Des up in a time of need, (making sure hie didn't get inconveniently married!) and make sure Des got introduced to Penny Widmore. She could make sure that Libby picked Des up in that coffee shop, and gave him the boat he needed so that he could get to the island.

Suddenly, a lot of ridiculous coincidences start to make sense...

Nice thinking!

IMO we will continue to see everyone getting in place to do a special "something." The same"something" that if not done will cause everyone of us to be dead...Des's TTing, the dates to which he did so, and those he just happened to find along the way are what sets him up to be the LeftBehinds only chance. The TTis what makes Des special...The Losties and the Freighter Four all have to be on that Island. Des's actions helped set that up. Ms H made sure of that....They are getting all the pieces in their proper place.

Well put, lostorfound. But if this is indeed the goal of Ben and Mrs. Hawking, then why does Ben see Widmore as such a threat? Is Charles actively working against their plan, or is Ben just worried that he will bungle things up in his efforts to regain control of the island? And what about Richard? Does he have his own agenda as well?

My take is that Richard did have a different Island agenda than Ben did.

I'm not sure if Ben and Ms. H have always had the same goal. She seemed more intent on getting Des to the Island and setting off the chain of events that we have seen. Ben on the other hand seemed "unpleased" by Des's attracting 815, the Kahana, etc......Off Island their goal appears to be the same...geting the O6 back to the Island.

Where Widmore fits in? D.K.

I wonder if Mrs. Hawking was ever Mrs. Widmore?

I wonder if Mrs. Hawking was ever Mrs. Widmore?

Charles, how dare you shaft that poor boy and break our daughter's heart! How dare you!

I'm filing for a divorce. Again.

I'm filing for a divorce. Again.

lol !!

I'm thinking that yes, hawking is lying. She knows that there are people who can actually change the past. Desmond is one of them. But I am gonna take the idea further. A time machine would end up not being very useful if the past can't be changed, right? What I mean is what if MOST people CAN actually change the past if they made use of a time machine? If so, imagine the kind of threat anyone could be if they get a hold of such device? That's when certain special people may come into play to prevent bad things from happening...

People that are assigned with the task of 'protecting' the course of history. Kind of like 'time cops'. But to become one of this time cops and guardians of the Island, you must fulfill certain requirements...

Unlike most people, you CAN NOT change the past, no matter how hard you would try. So as a time cop, you would be safe to time travel because even if you would feel tempted to change something, you WOULDN'T be able to do it.
These are the people that the Others regard as 'good'. They are worth of being on Jacob's list.

On the other hand, people who are not on Jacob's list, in case they engage in time travel, they would probably become a THREAT to the history of the world.

And guess who weren't on Jacob's list? Yes, all of the people who are time traveling now.

That could explain Hawking's GOD HELP US ALL. She knows that the people on the island who are now time traveling could mess up the original timeline causing all kinds of paradoxes. This could happen either on the Island itself or maybe if they GET OFF the island during some specific time jump, ending up in the outside world in a year BEFORE 2004. What if they meet themselves?
What if they do something not to get on Flight 815? What if? What if?
I guess you know what I mean.

And just for the record, I think Jacob's ghostly state will end up being the result of a paradox...;)

I'm thinking that yes, hawking is lying. She knows that there are people who can actually change the past. Desmond is one of them. But I am gonna take the idea further. A time machine would end up not being very useful if the past can't be changed, right? What I mean is what if MOST people CAN actually change the past if they made use of a time machine? I'm pretty sure that the rule of you of "you can't change the past" refers especially to those who TT and attempt to do so...Otherwise it would just be a hypothetical mantra. Like me givng advice to a friend "you can't change the past, look toward the future etc..."

That could explain Hawking's GOD HELP US ALL. ;)
FOREMAN: (Chuckles) Right. Okay, so, what? We're gonna go back and kill Hitler?
CHANG: Don't be absurd. There are rules, rules that can't be broken.
FOREMAN: So what do you want me to do?
CHANG: You're gonna do nothing. If you drill even 1 centimeter further, you risk releasing that energy. If that were to happen...
(Chang looks at the fallen workman and the blood all over his face.)
CHANG: ...God help us all.
Strangely enought that is exactly what Chang has said about drilling through the FDW chamber...He also knows you can't change the past.

I think it's helpful to really look intoFaraday's words
FARADAY: If it didn't happen, it can't happen.

FARADAY: You can't change the past, James!

FARADAY: You cannot change anything. You can't. Even if you tried to, it wouldn't work.

FARADAY: Time--it's like a street, all right? We can move forward on that street, we can move in reverse, but we cannot ever create a new street. If we try to do anything different, we will fail every time. Whatever happened, happened.

FARADAY: (Sighs) I know about this because... I've spent my entire adult life studying space-time. I know all this because this journal contains everything I've ever learned about the DHARMA Initiative. This is why I'm here. I know what's happening.

FARADAY: If it didn't happen, it can't happen.

FARADAY: You can't change the past, James!

FARADAY: What is important, Desmond, is what I'm about to say to you. I need you to listen. You're the only person who can help us because, Desmond... the rules... the rules don't apply to you. You're special. You're uniquely and miraculously special.
DESMOND: What are you talking about?
FARADAY: Listen, I need you to listen, or people are gonna die. My name is Daniel Faraday, and right now me and everyone else you left behind--we're in serious danger. You're the only person who can help us. I need you to go back to Oxford University. Go back to where we met.

We may be jumping to a conclusion in thinking that Desmond can change the past. Yes, he is in a miraculously special position by being both able to communicate with Dan as his past self on the Island and having a memory of Dan's advice in the future off the Island.

If Des is successful in finding Dan's mom and getting help, he is not changing the past. He is helping the LBers, Island, world etc. in the present.

Whatever has happened has happened. But now something unique is happening in the present...the Island (or LBers) are skipping about in time. There is present and future danger. Could Dan speaking to past Desmond get that past Desmond to do something differently in the past and change what has happened up till this moment? Probably not. The specialness of Desmond's dual time/space positioning however is allowing him to help the Island's and outside world's present via receiving messages from Island through his past.

I'm pretty sure that the rule of you of "you can't change the past" refers especially to those who TT and attempt to do so...Otherwise it would just be a hypothetical mantra. Like me givng advice to a friend "you can't change the past, look toward the future etc..."

of course. Do you think that most of the people left on the island wouldn't want to change something in their past that they regret? Sawyer? Juliet? Locke? Red shirts? Of course they would try to do it. That is why they are a threat to the world's history. On the other hand, the 'others' aren't. They couldn't change anything even if they tried to. That is why they are the island keepers. They are 'good' people. Perhaps they don't regret anything they have done. Therefore they wouldn't feel the need to change anything in their past. That is why they are perfect for the job of course correction.

And I don't know if I said it here or in annother thread, but I think based on Desmond's comment about knocking on the door for 20 minutes, that he DID hear Sawyer the first time. He was just getting ready to go outside to check thngs out.

Also there is the risk of the lefties meeting themselves ON or OFF the Island and, according to Candle, that would be a very BAD thing to happen.

I'm thinking that yes, hawking is lying. She knows that there are people who can actually change the past. Desmond is one of them. But I am gonna take the idea further. A time machine would end up not being very useful if the past can't be changed, right? What I mean is what if MOST people CAN actually change the past if they made use of a time machine? If so, imagine the kind of threat anyone could be if they get a hold of such device? That's when certain special people may come into play to prevent bad things from happening...

People that are assigned with the task of 'protecting' the course of history. Kind of like 'time cops'. But to become one of this time cops and guardians of the Island, you must fulfill certain requirements...

Unlike most people, you CAN NOT change the past, no matter how hard you would try. So as a time cop, you would be safe to time travel because even if you would feel tempted to change something, you WOULDN'T be able to do it.
These are the people that the Others regard as 'good'. They are worth of being on Jacob's list.

On the other hand, people who are not on Jacob's list, in case they engage in time travel, they would probably become a THREAT to the history of the world.

And guess who weren't on Jacob's list? Yes, all of the people who are time traveling now.

That could explain Hawking's GOD HELP US ALL. She knows that the people on the island who are now time traveling could mess up the original timeline causing all kinds of paradoxes. This could happen either on the Island itself or maybe if they GET OFF the island during some specific time jump, ending up in the outside world in a year BEFORE 2004. What if they meet themselves?
What if they do something not to get on Flight 815? What if? What if?
I guess you know what I mean.

And just for the record, I think Jacob's ghostly state will end up being the result of a paradox...;)
I really, really like this idea. Maybe, as you said, they're like "time cops". As I pointed out in another thread, why would TPTB introduce the concept of time travel if it couldn't be put to use? Why would Candle want to harness the ability to time travel if you couldn't do anything with it? Either the past can be changed (at least by certain individuals), or the future can be changed. Perhaps it's a little of both.

It's curious that no one has left the island on the wrong bearing. I assume if they do so they could end up in the off-island future.

As I pointed out in another thread, why would TPTB introduce the concept of time travel if it couldn't be put to use? Why would Candle want to harness the ability to time travel if you couldn't do anything with it? Either the past can be changed (at least by certain individuals), or the future can be changed. Perhaps it's a little of both.

In their interviews, TPTB have described the scenario of a character having knowledge of current event and then TTing to the past to prevent that event from happening. ... This is what they have repeatedly said would NOT happen on Lost. Then they have had their characters reiterate this point over and over again. Hawking knows it, Chang knows it, and Faraday knows it.

Desmond tried to change the past and bought Penny the ring regardless of Ms. H's warning. Low and behold he STILL couldn't bring himself to propose instead of joining the Royal Guard. Why? Because it already happened and you can't change the past.

So what's the point of trying to manipulate time or building a means of transporting people through time? ...... Possibly to accomplish what Chang is trying to do in his broadcast which is exactly what Daniel is trying to do through Desmond.....get a message from the past into the future.

Both Chang (in video) and Daniel(when he speaks to Des 2001) have knowledge regarding the future. Chang has received info about the upcoming Purge and some other future event. He is unable to stop them because he is in the past, what has happened has already happened, and is only hope is to contact someone in our present (his future) from stopping it.

Daniel is now a TTer to the past with info regarding the future (the present he originated from). However as a TTer to the past he is unable to change anything that has already happened. Anything that has happened in his lifetime has already happened. He is helpless.

Then there is Desmond. Is there any possible way that Daniel can convince Desmond (in the hatch) to do it all differently? No. Desmond has already lived 2001-2008 a certain way. What has happened has happened. BUT because of this wacky time thing on the Island, Daniel can talk to Des in 2001 because they've already met in 1996 and Des can remember the 2001 conversation off Island in 2008.

I think all the effort is to try to find a way around the rules...much like Des and Dan are doing.
100%
I'd like to add another thought after last nights epi of Jughead. First off I think we're closer on the possibility scale that Ms. H is Ellie is Dan's mom.

The Richard/Locke circle was VERY interesting and IMO a possible insight into the FBYE Des/Ms. H meeting....I think at some point on the Island, Ellie was told to be there for Desmond in 1996 to do whatever is "humanly" possible to ensure he stays on track. Of course you can't change what has already happened, but you can make sure nobody tries to.

Ms. H knew that Des had been on the Island from 2001-2004 and all that had occured since because she had been told so before 1996.