If a Time Traveler departs from the year 2000 and arrives in the year 1999, there will be two of him, very close in age and appearance, at the same point on a timeline, like the two #15 bunnies in the Orchid.

If the Time Traveler remains in the past, two of him will age into the future at the same rate, and the younger one will go back in time and the older one will appear never to have left, BUT there will be three of him... imagine then on top of that... that the three share the same consciousness by virtue of CTTing.

These are not exactly clones because each one is really YOU in various stages of your life... not the same as a clone.

1. If you wanted to kill this person, you'd have to kill all of the versions of him.

2. Christian Shephard is dead, but he is also alive because at some point there were at least two of him, and at least one of those hims is alive. The CS we see may be the Time Traveler . . The man in Jack's office building? A Time Traveling CS? smoke = TT?

3. One of the Locke's was never thrown out of the window. Therefore he can walk.

4. Mikhail's ressurection from the dead... at least two Mikhails died.

Anyone else have anything to add? Disagree with? Pontificate upon?

What you have on Lost is a lot of characters pretending to be dead and a lot of characters pretending to travel in time, and they're abetted in this pretense by the view of their endeavors the makers of Lost give us.

Christian pretended to be dead, but then something went wrong with the pretense so it was dropped. Either that, or his pretending to be dead came after something went wrong and the conspirators in this hoax needed to change their story. However, I'm guessing for now that it's the former -- that in their original version of their story, he was supposed to have died in Australia, but that something went wrong so they suppressed accounts of his supposed death in Australia.

Bakunin pretended to die several times. I used to think he needed a double, but now I see there was no need for him to have one.

Robert

I really like this idea, as I've been averse to the whole cloning process. However, are these "you's" aware of each other existing in the same timeline? What if you killed the 1999 one? Then the 2000 one didn't exist correct? It sounds paradoxical unless I'm missing something.

I really like this idea, as I've been averse to the whole cloning process. However, are these "you's" aware of each other existing in the same timeline? What if you killed the 1999 one? Then the 2000 one didn't exist correct? It sounds paradoxical unless I'm missing something.


I'm not sure if the Universe will allow the death of the 1999 "you"... so as to avoid that paradox. I.E. When someone tried to mow down Emily Locke while she was pregnant, Locke survived against all odds. Also the need for Locke's kidney to be removed so he wouldn't die when Ben shot him might be examples of this.

I'm not sure if the Universe will allow the death of the 1999 "you"... so as to avoid that paradox. I.E. When someone tried to mow down Emily Locke while she was pregnant, Locke survived against all odds. Also the need for Locke's kidney to be removed so he wouldn't die when Ben shot him might be examples of this.

That was a perfect explanation and makes this time travel junk perfectly valid. So the essence of time is not days, weeks, months. But it's actually when it's my time, when it's your time etc. if that makes any sense. The universe doesn't care about time, it needs you and gets rid of you.

As another response to this, why does the universe allow these persons to time-travel? If the 1999 person needed to do something why didn't the universe have the 1999 person do it? Sorry if I'm asking questions you've addressed already but I really think you're on to something.

I dont believe in fate, nor that Universe arrange everything so that "SOMETHING" happens...

Just as Locke says "dont confuse fate by coincidence".
I think coincidence is all that happens.

And the fact that Locke's missing kidney saved his life, I think it was exactly because of what this thread is about... Because there are 2 Lockes out there, and thats why he didn't die then. But the one who got shooted died :S



Its difficult... :\
But I think you're definitely on to something. =D

If a Time Traveler departs from the year 2000 and arrives in the year 1999, there will be two of him, very close in age and appearance, at the same point on a timeline, like the two #15 bunnies in the Orchid.

If the Time Traveler remains in the past, two of him will age into the future at the same rate, and the younger one will go back in time and the older one will appear never to have left, BUT there will be three of him... imagine then on top of that... that the three share the same consciousness by virtue of CTTing.

These are not exactly clones because each one is really YOU in various stages of your life... not the same as a clone.

1. If you wanted to kill this person, you'd have to kill all of the versions of him.

2. Christian Shephard is dead, but he is also alive because at some point there were at least two of him, and at least one of those hims is alive. The CS we see may be the Time Traveler . . The man in Jack's office building? A Time Traveling CS? smoke = TT?

3. One of the Locke's was never thrown out of the window. Therefore he can walk.

4. Mikhail's ressurection from the dead... at least two Mikhails died.

Anyone else have anything to add? Disagree with? Pontificate upon?

Well, i disagree with the overall premise of the theory. You can't clone a person by time travel. If someone travels from 2000 to 1999, then there are two of that person, but only for a year. You couldn't logically kill the 1999 version, because then they couldnt have time traveled back a year later. If you could, the 2000 version would probably vanish in a puff of logic.

I don't think this is the case, they are hardly going to explain every little thing with time travel. It would ruin the show imo.

Well, i disagree with the overall premise of the theory. You can't clone a person by time travel. If someone travels from 2000 to 1999, then there are two of that person, but only for a year. You couldn't logically kill the 1999 version, because then they couldnt have time traveled back a year later. If you could, the 2000 version would probably vanish in a puff of logic.

It's the Grandfather Paradox. If you go back in time and kill your own grandfather, you can never exist. However, the 1999 version COULD kill the 2000 version without disappearing. It would almost be like a second chance.

Well, i disagree with the overall premise of the theory. You can't clone a person by time travel. If someone travels from 2000 to 1999, then there are two of that person, but only for a year. You couldn't logically kill the 1999 version, because then they couldnt have time traveled back a year later. If you could, the 2000 version would probably vanish in a puff of logic.

Hence, the Smoke Monster.


It's the Grandfather Paradox. If you go back in time and kill your own grandfather, you can never exist. However, the 1999 version COULD kill the 2000 version without disappearing. It would almost be like a second chance.

However, you'd want to make sure you forgot that event, so your future self could prevent your past self from doing the deed. And that could be kinda tricky.

But if you forget, the cycle may continue forever since the 1999 you would have learned nothing. If the goal was to make things better or correct a mistake, wouldn't it be prudent to learn everything you could from 2000 you to avoid or correct the 'future'? I suppose I'm assuming that's the goal:redface:

It's the Grandfather Paradox. If you go back in time and kill your own grandfather, you can never exist. However, the 1999 version COULD kill the 2000 version without disappearing. It would almost be like a second chance.

Possible, but you'd die in a year's time.

But if you forget, the cycle may continue forever since the 1999 you would have learned nothing. If the goal was to make things better or correct a mistake, wouldn't it be prudent to learn everything you could from 2000 you to avoid or correct the 'future'? I suppose I'm assuming that's the goal:redface:

That depends on whether or not it's possible to change the past, or the future, in the Lost universe. The writers seem to want to push a paradox-free, course correcting universe, so it's entirely possible that anything future-you said couldn't be avoided.

Possible, but you'd die in a year's time.

Why? If 1999 you doesn't go back as 2000 you to be killed by 1999 you, the new-old you would stay alive. Did I just confuse myself with the you versions???

That depends on whether or not it's possible to change the past, or the future, in the Lost universe. The writers seem to want to push a paradox-free, course correcting universe, so it's entirely possible that anything future-you said couldn't be avoided.

So then destiny wins regardless. That suggests that the tampered-with method of death was destined as well. Charlie was destined to die saving everyone, or thinking he was, not by lightening or drowning, etc. Perhaps Des dealing with the choice to save Charlie is part of destiny's lesson for him. Like the Matrix, would he have broken the vase had the Oracle said nothing?
100%
so sorry! I'm too new at this posting thing and I've replied in the middle of a quote!! Forgive me!

The younger version then knows they are essentially bulletproof.

paraphrased quote
Charles: Did you come to kill me Ben?
Ben: You and I both know I can't do that.

They are bulletproof because they are alive in the future and they can use it to their advantage if they know they are alive at some point in the future.

Bulletproof might be the wrong term.
Let's just say, they can't die until they actually do the time travel in the first place.

The 'double' (actually the same person) can certainly die.

The question is, how much can the younger self deviate?
Destiny is a fickle bitch.

Would it be too crazy to suggest the reason Ben can't kill Charles is that Charles is actually the future version of Ben??? I may have jumped off the cliff with this one!
Of course it would blow my own theory that the younger version could kill the future version...:eek2: