After reading a number of recent posts on the Locke/Richard go-around (Richard visits baby Locke at his birth in 1956 only after future grown Locke tells Richard to do so in 1954) and the baby Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore theory, it seems to me that at the heart of where the metaphysics of Lost is heading is messing with the concept of causation—what some here have described as the “chicken and egg” thing.

Browsing through the some of the older topics from previous seasons I’ve come across some threads on time loops. However, I don’t know if the reference below has ever been posted/discussed (I’m a noob to this board and I can’t figure out if there is a search term function), but I came across an article on Wikipedia called the “Novikov self-consistency principle” that looks like the theoretical basis underlying Lost’s view of time travel (at least with respect to physical time travel, as opposed to consciousness time travel like in FBYE and The Constant). The introduction to the Wiki article states:
“The Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture, is a principle developed by Dr. Igor Novikov in the mid-1980s to solve the problem of paradoxes in time travel, which is theoretically permitted in certain solutions of general relativity (solutions containing what are known as closed timelike curves). Stated simply, the Novikov consistency principle asserts that if an event exists that would give rise to a paradox, or to any "change" to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero. Philosopher Paul Horwich, who has written a number of papers on time travel, made a similar argument prior to Novikov: that autoinfanticide did not present a problem for time travel - it merely showed that if you went back in time you would find you would not be able to kill yourself. Horwich also argued that it was possible to affect the past, but not to change it.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

An article linked in Wiki by Dr. Igor Novikov published in 1999 in the European Astronomical Society newsletter called “Notion Of The Past & Can We Change It?” spells it out more in laymen’s terms: “First of all if somebody use a time machine it means he/she makes a `loop of time'. I wish to attract the readers attention to one totally new factor that arises here. If a `time loop' exists, the events on this loop cannot be separated into future and past. To clarify this statement, let us consider the following example.

Imagine that I walk in a long string of people moving along a straight line. I can definitely say which of them is in front of me and who is behind. If, however, we all follow a circle, I can say `ahead of me'or `behind me' only about my nearest neighbours but not about the entire line of people. Regarding people further and further ahead of me, I ultimately go around the entire circle and reach myself from behind. This is why people moving on a circle cannot be divided into those `moving in front' and those `walking behind'.

The same is true for the `time loop'. We can say which of the nearest events belong to the future and which to the past. But this division cannot be applied to the time loop as a whole. The loop has no clearly defined future and no past, and all events affect one another on a circle. Briefly and metaphorically speaking, we are under `double' strong influence: without the time machine events are influenced by the flow of data from the past (but not from the future! this is the gist of the causality principle), while events on the loop respond to information coming from both the past and the future.
Therefore, with the time machine, today's events must be consistent with (i.e. be determined by) not only the past but also the future! I formulated this self-consistency principle many years ago and now it appears to be accepted by everyone who works in the time machine field. Recently I and my colleagues were able to provide that this principle can be deduced from the fundamental laws of physics.
Let us recapitulate. With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and in the future), that's the end, it cannot be altered. `What has really happened cannot be undone'.
Still, how about the assassination of the grandparents? Could this extravagant crime be committed using the time machine? The answer is a categorically NO. The American physicist Kip Thorne puts it this way:
`` ...something has to stay your hand as you try to kill your grandmother. What? How? The answer (if there is one) is far from obvious, since it entails the free will of human beings. The compatibility between free will and physical law is a terribly muddy issue even in the absence of time machines."
As for the constraints of “free will”, the reader should notice that even without a time machine, ANY LAW OF PHYSICS places limits on “free will”. Say, I might wish to walk on the ceiling (without special equipment): my “free will” prompts me to. This, however, is forbidden. The law of universal gravitation limits my “free will” and there is nothing I can do about it.
In the presence of the time machine the constraints on `free will' are, of course, somewhat different, but they are not, in principle, anything extraordinary in the physics of our time.

http://eas.iap.fr/EAS18/time18/ontime.html

I think this sums us nicely what the heck is going on with (physical) time travel on Lost.

UPDATE: I found an earlier post by Richardstone (http://forum.thefuselage.com/member.php?u=29747) from August 2008 that cites/links to the above Novikov articles: http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?t=101775 (http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?t=101775); also a post from 2007 by Bigmouth nicely describes the Novikov theory in relation to some other time travel theories (like quantum theory of alternate universes/timelines).
http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?p=1402660&highlight=novikov#post1402660

Fascinating article!

Too bad they didn't stick to that when writing FBYE. If time was truly unmalleable they would never have had to invent their "course correction" nonsense...

Thanks for the post and link. I've been interested in Novikov's theory for a long Lost time, especially regarding loops.

This is another I've tried applying to the crash of 815.
After considering the problem, two students at Caltech (where Thorne taught), Fernando Echeverria and Gunnar Klinkhammer, were able to find a solution beginning with the original billiard ball trajectory proposed by Polchinski which managed to avoid any inconsistencies. In this situation, the billiard ball emerges from the future at a different angle than the one used to generate the paradox, and delivers its younger self a glancing blow instead of knocking it completely away from the wormhole, a blow which changes its trajectory in just the right way so that it will travel back in time with the angle required to deliver its younger self this glancing blow. Echeverria and Klinkhammer actually found that there was more than one self-consistent solution, with slightly different angles for the glancing blow in each case. Later analysis by Thorne and Robert Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Forward) showed that for certain initial trajectories of the billiard ball, there could actually be an infinite number of self-consistent solutions

I agree there are big nods to these self-consistency theories and that they are a big part in what we're seeing play out.

Fascinating article!

Too bad they didn't stick to that when writing FBYE. If time was truly unmalleable they would never have had to invent their "course correction" nonsense...

"Course correction" is similar to the solution that was provided to a potential paradox that was brought about by a billiard ball theory in relation to Novikov's principle. This theory was made by Polchinski.

Imagine a wormhole connected to two pockets on a billiard (pool) table.
One billiard ball enters one end (X) of the 'wormhole' and comes out of the other end (Y) before it's younger self has been sent into the (X) wormhole itself. It's sent as such an angle that it knocks it's younger self 'off course' and 'violates' it's self consistent history.

Then Echeverria and Klinkhammer solved this with some "course correction".
They just proposed that the billiard ball would emerge from (Y) and knock the 'paradox' ball right back into (X). Thus keeping the self consistent history.

I am hoping I have all this straight guys (I am positive I will be corrected, if not)

So I believe the end result is, you can affect the past, you just can't change it.
Which seems to be the exact 'rule' Ms Hawking gave Desmond in FBYE.

Now moving forward, Desmond does seem to be able to change something, how that is applied specifically we'll just have to wait and see. My guess is his 'present' self is the only one who can do anything. What happened, happened but Daniel can affect the past in such a way (giving 'hints' to Desmond) that can only affect the present and thus the future as it is written.

Desmond is the exception because his consciousness is something like 4D.
But as of this moment, I don't think that means he can actually change what had always happened, other than perhaps 'listen' and remember years from when he 'listened', in the present, as if he dreamt it.
100%
I've been interested in Novikov's theory for a long Lost time, especially regarding loops.

Your last thread on the plane subject was excellent and a lot of fun.
We certainly had some Novikov discussion there, in a different context.

"I am hoping I have all this straight guys (I am positive I will be corrected, if not)

So I believe the end result is, you can affect the past, you just can't change it.
Which seems to be the exact 'rule' Ms Hawking gave Desmond in FBYE.
Seems to me you did an excellent job and do have it all straight.
It's all an excellent example of Dan's "it happened because it has always happened" and which came first Locke convincing Richard he was the Other's leader or vice versa...They are two parts of a circle of events where it's undiscenab;e which follows what.
What happened, happened but Daniel can affect the past in such a way (giving 'hints' to Desmond) that can only affect the present and thus the future as it is written.

Desmond is the exception because his consciousness is something like 4D.
But as of this moment, I don't think that means he can actually change what had always happened, other than perhaps 'listen' and remember years from when he 'listened', in the present, as if he dreamt it.

I agree 100%. This is why Desmond gets classified as "special."
Your last thread on the plane subject was excellent and a lot of fun.
We certainly had some Novikov discussion there, in a different context.
Thanks, I had a lot of fun with it too. Hopefully some of it will pan out and the thread will be worth reviving..

Seeing Faraday knows more about this that anybody.
You have to go with String Theory that he suggested.
If the lost writers want the general public to understand what is going on at the island, they would not confuse them with several possibilities.
With fate not being able to change and needing the generations before to expand a family tree, the chicken can not come before the egg.

What I would like to know, is if Ellie is Penny's mother.

Seeing Faraday knows more about this that anybody.
You have to go with String Theory that he suggested.
If the lost writers want the general public to understand what is going on at the island, they would not confuse them with several possibilities.
With fate not being able to change and needing the generations before to expand a family tree, the chicken can not come before the egg.

If the chicken comes before the egg, who laid the egg for the chicken to come from??
There is no answer to the chicken and egg dilemna!

The string theory, as Faraday explained, is nothing more than saying that there is only one past and that past cannot be changed.....Connect both ends of the string and you have a loop or circle where all events are dependent on each other. Where/when the circle begins is impossible to locate.

TPTB don't need to explain Novikov, Polchinski, or Echeverria and Klinkhammer to get the point across. They already have.

The question is out there...Did Richard think Locke was "special" because Locke TTed back to 1954 and told him so OR was Locke only able to tell Richard he was "special" because Richard had previously told him so?? Chicken or the egg.

What we don't yet know is how long a period does this circle cover in regards to the Island and Losties, where (if anywhere) have the two ends of the string connected, is the circle a result of the Island; and if it is meant to be broken, at what point is that meant to happen.

Can we be sure that he said "string" or "street"?

When I first saw the episode, I thought he said "string".
When I read the transcript the next day at Lostpedia, it was transcribed as "street"
They showed the episode again that Saturday and I watched and thought he did say "street"
Yet, in context, "string" might make more sense, as in String Theory. .

I've seen both used in reviews and posts across the web.
I have not heard the podcasts for this season, so maybe this has been addressed?

Either way, I don't know if it changes the analogy itself or not.

Why name a character Minkowski unless it was a hint that was are using Minkowski spacetime, and thus special relativity? And if that's the case, does that rule out String Theory? I don't know.
Murasaki do you know?

Why name a character Minkowski unless it was a hint that was are using Minkowski spacetime, and thus special relativity? And if that's the case, does that rule out String Theory?
Not in the least. String theory seeks to unite General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Check out Time Travel in Einstein's Universe by J. Richard Gott for a great discussion of how one might use two cosmic strings as a time machine.

BTW, I thought Dan said "street," too, which is a better metaphor for what he seems to be describing. You can travel either direction on a street, but the street itself is a given, just like the timeline. By contrast, people don't travel along strings, so the reference makes less sense.

Also, for the OP, you might want to check out Richard Stone's thread re time travel (http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?t=101775) (among others) which discusses Novikov in detail. I think you'll find many who agree your theory is right on target!

I bet they use strings to keep track of it all. Probably on a sheet of cardboard or canvas, so they can pull the ends through to the other side.

And Bigmouth, while we may rarely be as smart as we think we are, we have far more potential than we typically give ourselves credit for.

Can we be sure that he said "string" or "street"?

When I first saw the episode, I thought he said "string".
When I read the transcript the next day at Lostpedia, it was transcribed as "street"
They showed the episode again that Saturday and I watched and thought he did say "street"

Just to muddy the waters further, a lot of folks swear he said "stream".

Close caption said street, too. Most media/columnist types that reviewed the episode used street.
Until Darlton weighs in, I'm going with street. It makes the most sense in context of Faraday's analogy.

Close caption said street, too.

Well, that pretty much seals it, IMO.
I forgot about asking about closed caption.

In almost all cases (non-live/scripted programs) they provide the scripts to be transcribed beforehand.

So I believe the end result is, you can affect the past, you just can't change it.
Which seems to be the exact 'rule' Ms Hawking gave Desmond in FBYE.

Thunder, This is a perfect distillation of the "Butterfly Effect" (short story by Ray Bradbury.) Very simple and concise.

^Looks like I have a reading assignment!

Although when I think of the term Butterfly Effect, I think of Biff finding the Sports Almanac.;)

ETA
http://www.scaryforkids.com/a-sound-of-thunder/

This classic idea of the Butterfly Effect is the same as Back to the Future, all past changes effect the present/future. Great story nonetheless!!! Quick read too.

So I believe the end result is, you can affect the past, you just can't change it. Which seems to be the exact 'rule' Ms Hawking gave Desmond in FBYE.If that were the rule she gave Desmond, she wouldn't have told him he could warn the man with red shoes and delay his death. That would be a change.

If that were the rule she gave Desmond, she wouldn't have told him he could warn the man with red shoes and delay his death. That would be a change.

No, that would be an affect. He still dies, just in a different way.
Just like Charlie.

MS. HAWKING: Because it wouldn't matter. Had I warned him about the scaffolding tomorrow he'd be hit by a taxi. If I warned him about the taxi, he'd fall in the shower and break his neck. The universe, unfortunately, has a way of course correcting. That man was supposed to die. That was his path just as it's your path to go to the island.

Booga,
marlowe was quoting me, although he or she didn't use the quote function.

Playing semantics here, really. Define "change". I'll give you the context of what I'm saying.

If you literally change the past, you also are changing the present and the future.
You are changing the Cause of some event or creating a new Cause, and the Effect of that event shows up as if it were there all along. This is the Butterfly Effect in the above references.

By virtue of the fact that Desmond didn't remember the conversation with Daniel, the whole 100 days from the crash to the Wheel turn, we can only assume he didn't literally change the past.

He changed his present/future from his own past.
And because it's not a physical change, it's no different than writing your own future everyday from a memory or thought of something that may or may not have even ever happened in your own past.

So what verbiage best describes what Desmond did?
"Affect" "slightly modify" ...you see what I'm getting at?

If there needs to be a different way to word it other than "affect" ,then so be it, it's still a consistent thought. And Hawking's rule still applies to everyone but Desmond, that's the irony of that scene.
She said you could "affect" "slightly modify" the past but it would be course corrected.

What does course correction provide? That no literal change to the past ever took place.

Personally, I think a lot of the theory going on about Desmond overstates his abilities.
It's likely he can only ever act as a medium between his own consciousness. Memory, thought.
So his past is slightly affected, not literally changed. Again, you could argue the semantics of the verbiage (that anything different at all is a "change") but the principle itself is a solid one and it's the same exact thing that Hawking said in her FBYE exposition.

No, that would be an affect. He still dies, just in a different way.:confused: How on earth can dying in a different way a day later NOT be a change?

Define "change". I'll give you the context of what I'm saying. "To cause to be different."

If you literally change the past, you also are changing the present and the future. You are changing the Cause of some event or creating a new Cause, and the Effect of that event shows up as if it were there all along. This is the Butterfly Effect in the above references.Bringing up the Butterfly Effect is exactly what I'm talking about. Red Shoe Man survives an extra day, getting into a car wreck the next. His continued existence on earth would have an infinite number effects on the people and things around him. Not the least of which would be his car (or whoever hits him).

The point is, more than one timeline is required. Even if the only change is you wake up 1 minute earlier in the morning, with no other effect on anyone else, that means you are on a different timeline than the one where you woke up a minute later. You may feel this is a worthless semantic point, but there is a very significant difference in a time travel theory positing a single timeline and one allowing for multiple ones.

Yours (and Hawkings', for that matter) is a multiple timeline time travel theory.

The point is, more than one timeline is required. Even if the only change is you wake up 1 minute earlier in the morning, with no other effect on anyone else, that means you are on a different timeline than the one where you woke up a minute later. You may feel this is a worthless semantic point, but there is a very significant difference in a time travel theory positing a single timeline and one allowing for multiple ones.

Yours (and Hawkings', for that matter) is a multiple timeline time travel theory.

On the contrary, Lost appears to follow a single, not multiple timeline theory of time travel. Prof. Michio Kaku discussed this in a recent January 2009 Popular Mechanics blog article:Some physicists actually liken time to a river, says Kaku, which meanders at different speeds through the universe. "There are two ways to resolve the time-travel paradox," Kaku explains. "One way is, the river of time [forks] into two rivers, so you change a parallel universe's path, not your own path." This theory, which asserts that our universe may be just one of an infinite number of universes, is known as the Multiverse Theory, and it's what Kaku personally believes. The creators of Lost, however, have taken a different approach, one pushed by some Russian physicists, according to Kaku. "They have whirlpools in the river of time, so you leave the timeline and go back into the past," Kaku says. "They believe that when you go back on a different path, there's some kind of physical principle preventing you from changing the past to make the future impossible."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4300774.html?page=2

One of the "Russian physicists" Kaku is referring to, I think, is Prof. Igor Novikov. In a 1999 article entitled "Notion of the Past & Can We Change It?", he explains what essentially appears to be the theoretical underpinning of time travel in Lost adopted by TPTB:
"""The loop has no clearly defined future and no past, and all events affect one another on a circle. Briefly and metaphorically speaking, we are under `double' strong influence: without the time machine events are influenced by the flow of data from the past (but not from the future! this is the gist of the causality principle), while events on the loop respond to information coming from both the past and the future. Therefore, with the time machine, today's events must be consistent with (i.e. be determined by) not only the past but also the future! . . . With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and in the future), that's the end, it cannot be altered. `What has really happened cannot be undone'.

http://eas.iap.fr/EAS18/time18/ontime.html
This sounds very similar to Daniel; TPTB are basically using Faraday to channel this theory of time travel.

Further, this single timeline theory is fully consistent with the "Butterfly Effect." If you go back in time--via a time machine or some other phenominum--and you cause someone to wake up a minute earlier than they had orginally, then that same timeline is altered; today's events are determined by the future affecting the past.

I think one of the big unaswered questions on Lost is what (when?), in effect, is the equivalent of a "time machine" that begins the time loop? (The still-to-be-revealed "Incident"? Desmond turning the fail safe key? Ben turning the FDW? Jacob burbing? Some "other" thing?).

:confused: How on earth can dying in a different way a day later NOT be a change?

When physicists talk about "change" (as opposed to "affect") they are referring to self and historical consistency. The biggest example:
The argument that is especially popular in debates of this sort is theso-called `grandfather paradox'. It goes roughly like this: ``If I could go back into the past in which my grandfather was very young, I could kill him and thereby make my own birth impossible". Or another version of the same paradox: ``I return into my own past, meet myself in my youth and kill my younger version". ........

Does the `grandfather paradox', or other similar paradoxes, demonstrate that travel through time is not allowed? Indeed, it seems logical that having gone back in time and eliminated the cause of a phenomenon that has already taken place in the present, we thereby violate the fundamental principle of science: causality!

THIS is a change. Going back in time and killing Hitler before he comes to power...CHANGE. Dying at 12:00 instead of 5:00..AFFECT. Using those extra 5hrs of life to save the world...CHANGE.

AFFECT=allowed CHANGE= impossible and course correction takes care of this.

ONE TIMELINE!
More Novikov:
First of all if somebody use a time machine it means he/she makes a `loop of time'. I wish to attract the readers attention to one totally new factor that arises here. If a `time loop' exists, the events on this loop cannot be separated into future and past. To clarify this statement, let us consider the following example.
Imagine that I walk in a long string of people moving along a straight line. I can definitely say which of them is in front of me and who is behind. If, however, we all follow a circle, I can say `ahead of me'or `behind me' only about my nearest neighbours but not about the entire line of people. Regarding people further and further ahead of me, I ultimately go around the entire circle and reach myself from behind. This is why people moving on a circle cannot be divided into those `moving in front' and those `walking behind'.
The same is true for the `time loop'. We can say which of the nearest events belong to the future and which to the past. But this division cannot be applied to the time loop as a whole. The loop has no clearly defined future and no past, and all events affect one another on a circle. Briefly and metaphorically speaking, we are under `double' strong influence: without the time machine events are influenced by the flow of data from the past (but not from the future! this is the gist of the causality principle), while events on the loop respond to information coming from both the past and the future.
Therefore, with the time machine, today's events must be consistent with (i.e. be determined by) not only the past but also the future! I formulated this self-consistency principle many years ago and now it appears to be accepted by everyone who works in the time machine field. Recently I and my colleagues were able to provide that this principle can be deduced from the fundamental laws of physics.
Let us recapitulate.
With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and in the future), that's the end, it cannot be altered. `What has really happened cannot be undone'.
Still, how about the assassination of the grandparents? Could this extravagant crime be committed using the time machine? The answer is a categorically NO. The American physicist Kip Thorne puts it this way:
`` ...something has to stay your hand as you try to kill your grandmother. What? How? The answer (if there is one) is far from obvious, since it entails the free will of human beings. The compatibility between free will and physical law is a terribly muddy issue even in the absence of time machines."
Philosopher Paul Horwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Horwich), who has written a number of papers on time travel, made a similar argument prior to Novikov: that autoinfanticide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoinfanticide) did not present a problem for time travel - it merely showed that if you went back in time you would find you would not be able to kill yourself. Horwich also argued that it was possible to affect the past, but not to change it.
100%

I think one of the big unaswered questions on Lost is what (when?), in effect, is the equivalent of a "time machine" that begins the time loop? (The still-to-be-revealed "Incident"? Desmond turning the fail safe key? Ben turning the FDW? Jacob burbing? Some "other" thing?).
We were posting at the same time. Sorry to have repeated a lot of what you quoted...

With regard to the above...the answer is the wormhole through which one passes in traveling to or from the Island. (IMO)

The Incident may be what created this wormhole to begin with.

We were posting at the same time. Sorry to have repeated a lot of what you quoted...

With regard to the above...the answer is the wormhole through which one passes in traveling to or from the Island. (IMO)

The Incident may be what created this wormhole to begin with.
.

No problem. I'm the noob here; I should be apologizing to you. :redface:

(Oh, and I like the wormhole theory; I've seen it discussed in other posts. If "true", then I assume Mrs. Hawkings has calculated where/when an event horizon will open.)

The point is, more than one timeline is required. Even if the only change is you wake up 1 minute earlier in the morning, with no other effect on anyone else, that means you are on a different timeline than the one where you woke up a minute later. You may feel this is a worthless semantic point, but there is a very significant difference in a time travel theory positing a single timeline and one allowing for multiple ones.

Yours (and Hawkings', for that matter) is a multiple timeline time travel theory.

The semantics I describe is in the context you are using "change".
Which is literal and not incorrect literally but this conversation surely requires to be placed in a different context. The context of past time travel is a tricky one.

It's not a worthless semantic point, at all, to talk about different universes and different timelines. "Course correction" as a device is only useful with a one world timeline.

It's definitely worth noting that this is not the avenue being used. Every indication, from the horses mouth, is a one universe, one version of events. When Desmond becomes unstuck he affects events in such a manner that literally changes small events and in a most linear/Cause>Effect sense "changes" nothing. That's why it's semantics to talk about any "change" being all "change" in this context.

There is no degree assigned to any and all changes in a most literal sense. It's a science fiction device because we have no non-fiction evidence that says otherwise it would occur with certainty in any one way. Which seems to be your argument (don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I read it).

Our current physics says it's very probable that none of this is even possible. We are already under a suspension of disbelief. Our logic has many ideas about past time travel, I think Novikov's idea allows for affectations of past events. The Butterfly Effect is useless as a hard-logical talking point because we have absolutely no evidence that it would happen that way either. It's fiction itself right now, although I think it is grounded in a consistent application of current physics, the point is we have no empirical evidence for it. We simply don't know what would happen. We don't even understand quantum physics fully. So, I am applying what they are using. How can we be incredulous about one speculative theory over another? I guess it's subjective at this point.

It's an interesting point you've made though and I'm glad you brought it up (the idea that the model that Damon and Carlton are using is a multiple world idea) but I definitely disagree.

So basically whatever happens has already happened. That is the theory in play here on Lost. They've always crashed on the Island, the Freighter always came to the Island, Ben always turned the FDW, Richard always visited young Locke, etc.

In our own timeline, if someone in the future were to go back to the past and try and change it, it would have already happened. Thus, nobody will ever go back in time and change the past.

Not sure if anyone metion this but the original title for the show was going to be "Circles"

At the 2008 San Diego Comic Con, Lindelof and Cuse expressly stated that the underlying time travel concept in Lost does not involve multiple timelines/alternate universes (at 5:08 - 6:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShaGra-inuI

The principle of being consistent to one's Self?

THIS is a change. Going back in time and killing Hitler before he comes to power...CHANGE. Dying at 12:00 instead of 5:00..AFFECT. Using those extra 5hrs of life to save the world...CHANGE.I understand what you're saying. You are suggesting that some things are too minor to have any effect on a major events. (Though it seems hard to argue 5 extra hours of life, unless you spent it sleeping, would cause absolutely no ripples in time, a la the butterfly effect.)

What I am arguing is that, by definition, in a single timeline time travel theory absolutely nothing is different when a person goes back in time. There aren't "minor" and "major" events (who decides which is which?).

Anyway, I do not believe Novikov is saying that, when a time loop exists, there was a previous period where there was NO time loop, as you seem to believe. For instance, in the context of Lost, Richard was ALWAYS present at Locke's birth. To accept this, one must also accept that Locke was always around in 1954 to tell him to be there.

From Novikov:

With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and in the future), that's the end, it cannot be altered. `What has really happened cannot be undone'.I believe when Novikov uses the word "affect" he is does not mean that anything is different. He means, as in the Locke example, that, while Locke has affected the past, it was an event that had always happened; the timeline had already taken his actions into account when it first occured!

The semantics I describe is in the context you are using "change".
Which is literal and not incorrect literally but this conversation surely requires to be placed in a different context. The context of past time travel is a tricky one.Actually, I think our discussion does come down to a semantic point... To have a single timeline theory, there can be absolutely no changes whatsoever, no matter how insignificant. That's the definition.

"Course correction" as a device is only useful with a one world timeline.I believe just the opposite!

Let me try to draw a graphical representation:

Sample Timeline (http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/BoogaFrito/LostTimelineExplanation.jpg)

Assuming (for example) that Charlie dies by lightning strike originally (point A on the blue line), but is saved by Desmond, an entirely new timeline is created (the green line).

There are now two timelines. One in which Charlie is already dead (blue) and one in which he lives (green). Assuming this is the only thing different, then once he dies (point B) the timelines once again merge.

Here's the thing: even if there were no other changes besides Charlie's death (a big assumption, considering everything he does between the lightning strike and his eventual death), there are still two timelines: the green and the blue!

There would be no reason for Course Correction other than to get a new timeline to merge back into the old one.

It's an interesting point you've made though and I'm glad you brought it up (the idea that the model that Damon and Carlton are using is a multiple world idea) but I definitely disagree.I think they may have said they are using a single-timeline theory of time travel, but unless Desmond always saved Charlie those many times (and the flashes were showing things that never happened, and never would), then they are in fact using a multiple timeline paradigm.

At the 2008 San Diego Comic Con, Lindelof and Cuse expressly stated that the underlying time travel concept in Lost does not involve multiple timelines/alternate universes.We'll see. Unless Hawking was lying, they are mistaken.

Anyway, I do not believe Novikov is saying that, when a time loop exists, there was a previous period where there was NO time loop, as you seem to believe.
Sorry I've been arguing many of your points, so wanted to make sure I do agree with you here.....I guess I see the loop as containing (ie) a 2001 that Dan wasn't on the Island and a time when Dan traveled to the past 2001. Which came first may be indistinguishable on a circle......It is only when the TT goes back that the straight line becomes a loop. Still, one timeline.

Actually, I think our discussion does come down to a semantic point... To have a single timeline theory, there can be absolutely no changes whatsoever, no matter how insignificant. That's the definition.

.............

There would be no reason for Course Correction other than to get a new timeline to merge back into the old one.

I think they may have said they are using a single-timeline theory of time travel, but unless Desmond always saved Charlie those many times (and the flashes were showing things that never happened, and never would), then they are in fact using a multiple timeline paradigm.
.

Yeah, I get the essentials of your logic completely and I can't object in principle, at all.

That was my point about allowing for some room in the fictional device.
If we have a short lived, second timeline that merges, it's still can be called a single universe/timeline because it's entirely speculative and fictional.

I would then have to just say, you shouldn't strictly define a single timeline theory to have "no changes whatsoever". All one consistent timeline needs is a self consistent history.

If there is some unseen guiding hand of the universe that assures a self consistent history, then it is the same as it ever was. What good is a second timeline, that only exists in the past, if it's fate is to merge with the original anyhow? It's only there to house the affectations that the time traveler futilely "changes" and to be washed away as if it were only a memory or a thought. It might as well have been a lucid dream.

Anyways, I don't think this is a "nonsense" idea, I think it's a science fiction device and it's pretty damn clever. Because there is an irony, I believe, in what Hawking said about "course correction" to Desmond. This stuff doesn't apply to him anyways. She's not lying, she's telling the invisible man who doesn't know he's invisible that he can't ever be invisible.

He didn't always go to Oxford and see Daniel, so the course didn't correct itself then, IMO when the bit appears in Dan's notebook.Is that a second timeline? Is that an alternate history other than the one we are watching? It's a question worth asking.

I'm saying it's intended to be all the same universe, whether we want to label these alternate histories as timelines or not. If you want to call them that, then I can agree in principle as long as we all agree they have to merge. The other idea is not to think of history as a static line, where TT affectations create these alternate 'lines' in our history, rather it is perhaps like a videotape, that can be recorded over in the middle but the end and the beginning can't ever be truly changed. Videotape or a string, where it can bend and fold on itself and meet itself in it's own past. You can go back and forth on it, but you can't make a new string. Which implies, if you affect something, you're weaving new thread into the string to replace the old.

I agree that the semantics get confusing. Loops, straight lines, cc alternate, change, affect, etc.

When these debates and theories began amongst physicist, the purpose was to show how/why paradoxical creations could not occur and to explain a way that TT could be possible AND non-paradoxical.

When "change" is discussed in these contexts, they are referring to paradox. Paradox, as used in TT theories, refers to anything that would prevent the TTer's ability to TT at the point in time which they always have OR to remove the motive for the TTer to do so.

IMO it's important to note that Novikov sees a loop to first begin once the TT has gone back in time. The straight timeline that existed before now becomes a Closed Time Curve (CTC).

For visual prespective, think of a straight timeline from 1988 to 2004. Now draw a jump from 2004 to 1988, winding up with a capital D on it's belly.

I guess the time traveler could remain in the past and continue along the 1988-2004 straight line. His other option is to return to 2004, creating a capital D on it's back.

Either way, nothing he does can prevent him from being present to TT back in 2004. He cannot die while TTing back to 1988 because then there will be no history of him TTing back to 1988 to die. That is CHANGE.

The same holds true for motivation, hence the famous Hitler example. If a TT from 2008 goes back to 1935 and kills Hitler...the timeline is CHANGED. There now exists a paradox whereby this traveler will reach 2008 and have no motivation to travel back in time. Hitler's war has never existed, so there is no reason tho go back and kill him.

The CDC or loop can end once the TT is back in his original time. From 2004 the timeline continues in a straight line.

Think about the visual created...A circle with a straight line that cuts through it. That line is what must remain intact. All the elements must lead up to the travelers going back in time in 2004 to 1988.

Of course once he/she does, time has been affected, but as long as the staight line in the middle leads the tt'er back to the point where he will/has ALWAYS traveled...paradoxically everything is safe.

Even in Novikov's principle, there are usually many possible self-consistent trajectories. Things don't have to happen EXACTLY as they did before. They just have to be consistent in the sense of no logical contradictions (e.g., the grandfather paradox). It's still one timeline in the sense that parallel timelines don't co-exist simultaneously ala Sliders or Star Trek.

I guess I see the loop as containing (ie) a 2001 that Dan wasn't on the Island and a time when Dan traveled to the past 2001. Which came first may be indistinguishable on a circle......It is only when the TT goes back that the straight line becomes a loop. Still, one timeline.I think I may have used a similar example on another thread:


Let's say that next month, in March of 2009, a group of time travellers appear in Norwich, Connecticut. They are from the year 2030. They wander around, take in some sights, maybe grab a bite to eat, and, before returning to their own time, buy into the IPO of a young tech firm called Zibutech.

Years later, in 2028, Zibutech develops a technology allowing people to travel back into time. The company's stock soars, making anyone who got in on the ground floor rich beyond belief. Two years after that, in 2030, a group of time travellers decide to go back in time (to 2009) to purchase some Zibutech stock. When they return to their own time, they're gazillionaires.

Okay. Here's the thing: there will never be a March of 2009 where the time travellers don't appear in Norwich. It happens. To them, it was the "past," and they affected it when they purchased stock and consumed some delicious baked goods. They didn't, however, change anything, because in 2028, before time travel was even possible, their "influence" (as Novikov calls it) had already been taken into account.

By which I mean: the time travellers could have looked at a list of Zibutech stockholders in 2028 and seen their names, before it had even occurred to them to use time technology to buy the stock.


So here is the Novikov time loop from my example:

1 - Time travellers purchase Zibutech stock in 2009
2 - Zibutech invents time technology in 2028
3 - Time travellers go back in time in 2030
4 - Go back to 1

Graphical Sample Timeline (http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/BoogaFrito/HistoryofTime.jpg)

There's a loop because events in the future are affecting the past, which is affecting the future, which is affecting the past, etc. But while the "loop" is made up of select points from the timeline (in red), the timeline itself is not actually looping. It remains an unbendable, straight line.


Out of curiosity, have you seen the movie Primer? It's a mindbender about time travel, using a Novikov-adhering, single-timeline theory. I highly recommend it!

Out of curiosity, have you seen the movie Primer? It's a mindbender about time travel, using a Novikov-adhering, single-timeline theory. I highly recommend it!
Highly recommended but Primer is the antithesis of Novikov. There are paradoxes galore throughout...

Even in Novikov's principle, there are usually many possible self-consistent trajectories. Things don't have to happen EXACTLY as they did before. They just have to be consistent in the sense of no logical contradictions (e.g., the grandfather paradox). .

Highly recommended but Primer is the antithesis of Novikov. There are paradoxes galore throughout...

Yes. It's important to realize that Novikov uses "change" to describe events that lead to paradoxes. A "change" will prevent the TTer from reaching the point from which they have always traveled and/or remove the means, motivation, ability etc. to do so.

A TTer cannot die in the past. This is a "change" that will prevent him from living to the point from which he traveled back....Paradox: you can't go from 2008 to 1980 and die while there. If you do then you will not live to 2008 which is the point you need to TT from in order to die in the past.

The same is true in the Hitler example. Say you build a time machine in 2008 and travel back to 1935 and kill Hitler. Come 2008 you will have no motivation to travel back to 1935 because now there was no Hitler to kill.

Keep in mind that Novikov cites time looping at the point the traveler leaves his present time.

For a visual perspective of the above, draw a straight timeline from 1930 to 2010. Follow that line to 2008 and jump back to 1935. You now have what looks like a capital "D" on it's belly.

Now go back to 2008 forming another capital "D" on its back. The circle that the two form are now part of your timeline. They must always exists because they always have.

The straight line running through the circle contain the events that get you from 2008 to 1935 to 2008 to 1935.

Even in Novikov's principle, there are usually many possible self-consistent trajectories. Things don't have to happen EXACTLY as they did before. They just have to be consistent in the sense of no logical contradictions (e.g., the grandfather paradox). It's still one timeline in the sense that parallel timelines don't co-exist simultaneously ala Sliders or Star Trek.

Self consistent history.

That's all that is needed, right?
100%
The principle of being consistent to one's Self?

Local memory.

A TTer cannot die in the past. This is a "change" that will prevent him from living to the point from which he traveled back....Paradox: you can't go from 2008 to 1980 and die while there. If you do then you will not live to 2008 which is the point you need to TT from in order to die in the past.

that is not true and Frogurt is the best example. He had to time travel FIRST in order to die later in the past. His life is a circular line, not linear.

that is not true and Frogurt is the best example. He had to time travel FIRST in order to die later in the past. His life is a circular line, not linear.
I need to correct myself...a TT cannot go back to the past and kill one's younger self.
Even in Novikov's principle, there are usually many possible self-consistent trajectories. Things don't have to happen EXACTLY as they did before. They just have to be consistent in the sense of no logical contradictions (e.g., the grandfather paradox). .
some backup for you:
Quantum behaviour is governed by probabilities. Before something has actually been observed, there are a number of possibilities regarding its state. But once its state has been measured those possibilities shrink to one - uncertainty is eliminated.
So, if you know the present, you cannot change it. If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past.
It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.
"Quantum mechanics distinguishes between something that might happen and something that did happen," Professor Dan Greenberger, of the City University of New York, US, told the BBC News website.
"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him.
"But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."
In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past. It is as if it has already happened.
"You go back to kill your father, but you'd arrive after he'd left the room, you wouldn't find him, or you'd change your mind," said Professor Greenberger. "You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him."

ar line, not linear. I need to correct myself...a TT cannot go back to the past and kill one's younger self.

Agreed. A paradox won't occur unless whatever changes are done in the past result in the TT being unable to time travel.

The principle of being consistent to one's Self?

Local memory.

I'm not talking about the self, dear Butterfly, but the Self - one's entelechy.

What did TPTB mean by a single timeline?
I think that they were saying is that the past, present and future are a tapestry woven of one cloth. Even with time-travel, what happens, happens. Causality is not restricted by the arrow of time - future events can cause past events. I can't go into the past and kill my father before I was conceived, because my existence proves that he lived long enough to father me. However, it is possible that my future self will travel to the past and cause my parents to meet. This is not paradoxical once we accept a different form of causality than we are used to.

Every event in this single timeline happens in one and only one way, whether time-travel is involved or not. Sawyer pounded on the Swan back-door but did not meet pre-crash Desmond by doing so. Sawyer was hidden in the brush at Aaron's birth in S1. Kate and Claire didn't notice him, but he was there. Danielle's group always rescued Jin. No alternate futures, parallel universes, just things as they are.

Are paradoxes even possible in the LOST universe?
I would argue that there is no possibility of a paradox in LOST. The "No Paradox" rule is not some sort of behavioral etiquette for time-travellers. It's an unbreakable law of nature. I will not travel into the past to kill father, and my existence is proof that I won't do any such thing. Daniel says that he knows that Desmond will not respond to Sawyer's door pounding because it didn't happen that way. Daniel's not trying to keep Sawyer from "changing the past." He shouldn't try changing it because it can't be changed.

How is Desmond uniquely and miraculously special?
The TPTB's rules above get thrown out the window for Desmond. Desmond can change the future, affect the past, manipulate the present. I'm guessing that when Desmond changes something, it changes the whole tapestry. The old tapestry no longer exists, except perhaps as memories for a few enlightened people (like Ben.) The new tapestry may look a lot like the old one, but it's still new. There are no branching or parallel worlds. Reality is just whatever tapestry Desmond has created at the moment. We're seeing the version that matters, whether it resolves the story, or just leads to another loop.

Butterfly Effect vs. Self-Correction
In Physics, there is a field called Dynamics that describes physical systems in motion at equilibrium as either Stable or Unstable. A stable system is self-correcting. A spinning top is self-correcting. A slight nudge to the top will cause it to wobble but it will eventually regain its equilibrium. An upside-down pyramid balanced on its peak is unstable. The slightest nudge will cause it to fall over.

The Butterfly Effect applies to unstable theories of time-travel - small changes create huge impacts. By telling us that time will self-correct, TPTB are telling us that Desmond's small nudges will normally not radically effect the future. And we don't need to worry about the Butterfly Effect. Still, for any system there is a limit to the level of disturbance that self-correction can overcome.

Does the course correction Ms. Hawking told Desmond about apply to the average run-of-the-mill time-traveller?
No, nobody else is subject to course correction. They exist with the single tapestry and can't change anything. I think Ms. Hawking was trying to limit what Desmond would try to change by telling him a half-truth. Yes, if Desmond just nudges the timeline, the universe will self-correct. But the half-lie is that Desmond can do more than just nudge it.

Desmond nudged "the top" slightly when saving Charlie's life the first couple of times. He bumped it harder when he saved Charlie from the arrow. He slapped it across the table by getting Charlie to go into the Looking Glass. Calling Penny, remembering his conversations with Faraday, Desmond been changing things a lot ever since. Each one creates a new tapestry.
100%
A TTer cannot die in the past. This is a "change" that will prevent him from living to the point from which he traveled back....Paradox: you can't go from 2008 to 1980 and die while there. If you do then you will not live to 2008 which is the point you need to TT from in order to die in the past.
Why couldn't you die in the past? You could commit suicide in 2008 and it would have the same result as going back to 1980 without impacting the past and dying there. I don't see the paradox. A time-traveller's life doesn't have to follow the natural timeline, it just has to be self-consistent. Also, there is no reason that your past self and you can't coexist in 1980. Your personal existence depends only on your "past" back along the time trajectory you experienced, which corresponds to the natural timeline until 2008 then loops back to create a parallel trajectory in 1980. The death of your later self in 1980 is irrelevant to your earlier self in 1980.

The same is true in the Hitler example. Say you build a time machine in 2008 and travel back to 1935 and kill Hitler. Come 2008 you will have no motivation to travel back to 1935 because now there was no Hitler to kill.
You can never accomplish that because it is not self-consisent, so that can't be the way it happen (in the LOST universe). However, you could go back to 1920, attempt to kill Hitler and fail, and create the paranoid misanthropic Hitler that did everything he is known to have done. Your time-travel can be either irrevelant to history or cause history, but it cannot change history. Causality does not have to be time-linear, but it does have to be consistent.

What did TPTB mean by a single timeline? . . . Are paradoxes even possible in the LOST universe?. . . How is Desmond uniquely and miraculously special?. . . Butterfly Effect vs. Self-Correction. . . .Does the course correction Ms. Hawking told Desmond about apply to the average run-of-the-mill time-traveller? . . ..

Enchanter, excellent post. I think you've very nicely laid out the TPTB's view of time travel in Lost and how Desmond's role as an "x-factor" is playing out over time (pun intended).

Does the course correction Ms. Hawking told Desmond about apply to the average run-of-the-mill time-traveller?
No, nobody else is subject to course correction.Every time traveler is subject to course correction. As long as this is a Novikov thread:

NOTION OF THE PAST & CAN WE CHANGE IT ?
BY I. NOVIKOV
THEORETICAL ASTROPHYSICS CENTRE, COPENHAGEN

...Still, how about the assassination of the grandparents? Could this extravagant crime be committed using the time machine? The answer is a categorically NO. The American physicist Kip Thorne puts it this way:
`` ...something has to stay your hand as you try to kill your grandmother. What? How? The answer (if there is one) is far from obvious, since it entails the free will of human beings. The compatibility between free will and physical law is a terribly muddy issue even in the absence of time machines."
As for the constraints of `free will', the reader should notice that even without a time machine, ANY LAW OF PHYSICS places limits on `free will'. Say, I might wish to walk on the ceiling (without special equipment): my `free will' prompts me to. This, however, is forbidden. The law of universal gravitation limits my `free will' and there is nothing I can do about it.
In the presence of the time machine the constraints on `free will' are, of course, somewhat different, but they are not, in principle, anything extraordinary in the physics of our time.


Why couldn't you die in the past? I corrected that before. Should have said "killing your past self."

You can never accomplish that because it is not self-consisent, so that can't be the way it happen (in the LOST universe). I believe that is what I said. If not it's what I meant to.

You could kill yourself in the past, but then a phoenix would emerge in your stead. And that new self would then go back and re-establish itself as the product of its own causal loop.

So, you know, if you're willing to die, if you're sure that what transpired between when you went back was so horrible that another choice would be preferred, go right ahead.

You can never accomplish that [going back to kill Hitler] because it is not self-consisent, so that can't be the way it happen (in the LOST universe). But Desmond could?

Your thoughts on Desmond are the only ones I disagree with. We'll see if that truly is what they meant by "Desmond is special." It makes little sense to say there is only one unchangeable timeline for everyone except Desmond, who lives in a multiverse...

Your thoughts on Desmond are the only ones I disagree with. We'll see if that truly is what they meant by "Desmond is special." It makes little sense to say there is only one unchangeable timeline for everyone except Desmond, who lives in a multiverse...

What's the difference between changing the past and changing the future?

Every time traveler is subject to course correction. As long as this is a Novikov thread.
Re-reading your post I see now that you were discussing the implications of Novikov theory, so my bad. Personally, I'm guessing that on LOST the Novikov theory only applies to Desmond.

I corrected that before. Should have said "killing your past self."
That makes more sense. It just sounded like you were confusing universal time-stream and personal time-streams. I thought it odd coming from you, because I usually agree with many of your theories :)
100%
But Desmond could?

Your thoughts on Desmond are the only ones I disagree with. We'll see if that truly is what they meant by "Desmond is special." It makes little sense to say there is only one unchangeable timeline for everyone except Desmond, who lives in a multiverse...

I probably overstated Desmond's "powers" in my effort to emphasize how different he is from the other characters, so I'll try to be more specific.

Everyone else in the universe that does not know about Desmond is mired in a deterministic, static universe. Time-travelling just allows them to perform the actions they are "suppose to" in this static tapestry, where "suppose to" referes to self-consistency rather than destiny. This is not Novikov as there is no real possibility of tt'ing making any change, major or minor.

Desmond became "unstuck in time", that is, free of the tapestry when he was involved in the Black Swan event. That is most likely when he turned the fail-safe key at the Swan count-down event, though there are other possibilities (like not turning the fail-safe key when 815 crashed.)

Desmond is now subject to Novikov's self-consistency ideas, that is, he can make small changes to the past as long as he doesn't materially change anything prior to his "present", that is, his current personal circumstances. This gives him certain "powers":

1.) He can get information from his past to affect his future, like getting the phone number from Penny

2.) He can use his knowledge of the future (of the current tapestry) to change this future (i.e. create a new tapestry.) as long as that future is still consistent with his past. He did this when he saved Charlie's life repeatedly. These are the changes that caused Ben to think that Widmore "changed the rules."

3.) It is possible that he can change some aspects of the past to change his future, like influencing Charlie's learning to swim as a child. This is a long shot, but I like the idea.

4.) Other people in the know can also use Desmond to change the future, as Daniel did by giving Hatch Desmond a message for Yacht Desmond.

For everyone else, memories of the previous tapestries quickly fade and because most of the changes involve the future, not the past, in most ways little that is meaningful changes anyway.

Whether the tapestries constitute a multiverse is debatable. If by multiverse you mean there are parallel branching worlds that differ from but are equally as valid as the LOST universe we've seen, I'd disagree.

Forgive me for switching analogies, but I see it more as single painting in which part of the painting is being painted over. The changed part of the picture still exists but only as hidden layers under the new painting, only detectable where it bleeds through. The same picture but with a new layer added.

And perhaps it's wrong to insist that the tapestry or painting is complete, that the entire future is written. At any given point in time, the tapestry must be complete only up to the point from which most future time-traveller that has affected anything up to the present left his time. So futures may be projected (like Charlie's deaths), but not written. They keep telling us that Jack wasn't suppose to leave the island, so there must still be free will.

No one can create paradox except Desmond, who is free of the universal law enforcing self-consistency. That's what Daniel was telling us. Desmond alone can change the "picture on the box."

If you cannot kill yourself or change anything, could you replace yourself? I know, what would be the point of that? But still, could Jack "step in" for Jack and act as Jack the rest of his life? Would that leave the other Jack with the ability to change things?

I ask only because there are many times when these characters seem prescient, or the dialogue was curious. And their having been replaced would explain a lot. For example (and this is from the Pilot, Part 2):
SAWYER: Yeah. I've been with girls like you.
KATE: No girl's exactly like me.

No one can create paradox except Desmond, who is free of the universal law enforcing self-consistency. That's what Daniel was telling us. Desmond alone can change the "picture on the box."
I wouldn't presume that yet. So far he's CTTed twice with causing a paradox.

Once the LBs started skipping, a loop in time was created as happens with all TTers.
This loop, and every event that it contains are self-consistent and have always happened. So now Dan has always tt'ed back to 2001/4 and spoken to Des in the hatch. So far no paradox.

Now Des is off the Island (in what is presumably the present), and remembers Dan's message. Still no paradox.

First, imho, Desmond is circumstantially special ... being in two places at once... one on the island in the past and one off the island in the future. If Sawyer had spoken to Kate when he saw her helping Claire birth Aaron, he could have sent a message through time and consciousness to future off-island Kate. Look at Kate's dream off-island O6 time in which she is visited by Claire and given a message not to "bring him back." Or Charlie's messages to Hurley/Jack.. "They need you." "You're not supposed to raise/raze him."

Daniel's phrase, "If it didn't happen, it can't happen" is off the mark - otherwise there would be no need for all of these course-corrections by the universe (or Ms. Hawking/Dharma).

Widmore changed the rules; he broke the rule of killing (Juliet was condemned to die for killing another Other).,.. but he also changed the rule "If it didn't happen, it can't happen." Alex died when she didn't die in previous loops, and the future would be course-corrected to reflect her death the same way the past was corrected to reflect John's survival of the bullet to the kidney gap. Our characters' lives exist entirely within a time loop and they are forever bound to it... or are they?

The "universe" (or Dharma?) has been able to go back and correct things like saving Locke's life when Ben shoots him by ensuring that Locke is missing a kidney, influencing the past to meet up with the future in which Locke is alive on the island (at least until sometime in 2005). What happens on the island is reflected in our characters off-island pasts and futures...the way Richard is connected to Locke in the past by having been told on the island that he will be born on 5/30/1956. The Losties' interactions with each other on the island have influenced their pasts and created new connections between them.

Whenever you are in the circle...both the future in front of you and the past behind you can affect your perception of the "present." Richard visiting Locke's birth is an example of the future influencing the past. Here's another...Remember that Doc Ray washed ashore on the Island before he had died on the Freighter. Even if the Freighties tried to save the doc, they would only be able to postpone his death because it had already happened in the future.

Widmore also says to Ben... "I wondered when you'd arrive.."

Widmore was expecting Ben to show up at some point after the Freighter's trip to the Island... half a point to Team Widmore...sending the Freighter did get Ben off the Island, but failed to kill everyone "alive" on the Island...though they tried... Now Widmore knows who is vital to the Island's "safety." The ones who didn't die on the Island, plus the O6 who got off the Island (i.e. who are still alive). In a time loop, your destiny is already written and you're doomed to keep repeating it...unless there is a way to stop what happens that created the loop in the first place. Abaddon's question to Hurley... "are they still alive?" seems relevant here ... Is Widmore's goal to stop time from looping on the island, while Ben et al. are trying to keep it going (so as to solve the VE? so as to buy more time to try to save humanity? so as to create a messiah through science?) Widmore says that the "war" is very old... does this mean that this time loop has gone on for centuries?

What's the difference between changing the past and changing the future?The direction you're facing.

Daniel's phrase, "If it didn't happen, it can't happen" is off the mark - otherwise there would be no need for all of these course-corrections by the universe (or Ms. Hawking/Dharma).Perhaps the idea of course-correction is off the mark...

Daniel's phrase, "If it didn't happen, it can't happen" is off the mark - otherwise there would be no need for all of these course-corrections by the universe (or Ms. Hawking/Dharma).
Course corrections (according to astrophysicists) exist to thwart attempts to change the past. They are always present whether it be in form of Mrs. H, a gun getting jammed, one's time machine not taking them to the intended time...there are many examples cited in various physics theories.

Nothing prevents the time traveler from TRYING to do whatever they want. Course correction just makes sure they don't succeed.

`` ...something has to stay your hand as you try to kill your grandmother. What? How? The answer (if there is one) is far from obvious, since it entails the free will of human beings. The compatibility between free will and physical law is a terribly muddy issue even in the absence of time machines."
As for the constraints of `free will', the reader should notice that even without a time machine, ANY LAW OF PHYSICS places limits on `free will'. Say, I might wish to walk on the ceiling (without special equipment): my `free will' prompts me to. This, however, is forbidden. The law of universal gravitation limits my `free will' and there is nothing I can do about it."

What the self-consistency principle is saying...is that the perception of the "present" is influenced by both future and past events in circular time. Free will has limitations, but nonparadoxical changes can be cleverly inserted into the timeline as we have already witnessed.

For example, a credible source knows someone is going to shoot Locke in the kidney in the future, but this source also knows that Locke is alive even further into the future after being shot...will anything keep Locke from removing the effected kidney before he gets shot? Removing the kidney would shorten his recovery time, but not the inevitability of being shot... so what was observed to have happened in the future still happens without paradox.

It's the same reasoning behind why Daniel's message to past Desmond "arrives" simultaneously to future Desmond.

Or looking at it from the future's perspective... the fact that I no longer have two kidneys requires that at some point in my past I lose one kidney.The universe finds a way to connect the future with the past, tying it all together.

I was referring to your post that I cited above....I don't think Dan was off the mark...you seemed to be saying that if one can't change the past then course correction is mute and unecessary. What I was pointing out is that course correction IS what prevents the past from being "changed" as opposed to "affected."

TPTB call it course correction. Novikov calls it the "something that has to stay your hand."

What the self-consistency principle is saying...is that the perception of the "present" is influenced by both future and past events in circular time. Free will has limitations, but nonparadoxical changes can be cleverly inserted into the timeline as we have already witnessed.

This might very well be where they're going.

Though my reading of Novikov is more absolute:

Nothing is changeable whatsoever. Effects of time-travel are already taken into account; thus no iterations are possible.

If this stricter interpretation is in play, then what we're shown with the time-travelers is simply history. Indeed, I think this conforms with Dan's "one string" metaphor. On that line, Desmond could pose a threat to the principle, or he could just be acting as a cog in a way that Dan/Hawking fail to recognize.

Nothing is changeable whatsoever. Effects of time-travel are already taken into account; thus no iterations are possible.

We saw the scene with Claire giving birth play out exactly the same way it did in S1, and (IMO) that's the way it will always happen, it could be argued that Sawyer was there during S1, that there never existed a history in which he didn't witness Aaron's birth. That also means there would be two Sawyers on the Island at that point in time, and that's why (again, IMO) Locke instinctively went the long way around to avoid running into himself at The Swan on the day Boone died.

If this stricter interpretation is in play, then what we're shown with the time-travelers is simply history. Indeed, I think this conforms with Dan's "one string" metaphor. On that line, Desmond could pose a threat to the principle, or he could just be acting as a cog in a way that Dan/Hawking fail to recognize.I've got a feeling (based on their conversation outside The Swan) that Daniel knows exactly what Desmond is, and what he can do; Theresa could have been an attempt by Daniel to create someone like Desmond? A failed attempt, admittedly, but I often wonder if that's what the DI were doing in The Swan before the Incident? Zapping people with that strange purple EM radiation, trying to unstick someone, let them loose to create a new street (or string); and perhaps DHARMA kept ramping up the dose, bigger and bigger concentrations of EM radiation, until one day.....BOOM.....there was a containment failure, a leak, and the whole project had to be shut down, concrete poured, the button installed, etc.

Eventually Locke would destroy the button, and Desmond would have to turn the key, exposing him to the biggest dose of EM radiation yet, and transforming him (in a classic superhero origin story sort of way) into a Black Swan, an unpredictable wild card, someone not bound by the rules in the same way as people who physically travel through time, like the Left-Behinds, are bound.

We saw the scene with Claire giving birth play out exactly the same way it did in S1, and (IMO) that's the way it will always happen, it could be argued that Sawyer was there during S1, that there never existed a history in which he didn't witness Aaron's birth. That also means there would be two Sawyers on the Island at that point in time, and that's why (again, IMO) Locke instinctively went the long way around to avoid running into himself at The Swan on the day Boone died.

Exactly. And we know their younger selves won't see their time-traveling counterparts, because, well, they haven't AFAWK.

I've got a feeling (based on their conversation outside The Swan) that Daniel knows exactly what Desmond is, and what he can do; Theresa could have been an attempt by Daniel to create someone like Desmond? A failed attempt, admittedly, but I often wonder if that's what the DI were doing in The Swan before the Incident?

I think you're probably dead on regarding Dan's intentions. Because he was funded by Widmore, perhaps it was Widmore who prompted the search for a Black Swan in the first place.

As a Black Swan might threaten the "fabric of the universe," Widmore must have had some serious motivation indeed. After all, without one, Novikov would presumably take care of the fabric.

I tend to think the button pushing was deathly serious. But why the notetakers in the Pearl? They would certainly fit with your suggestion. Maybe Chang et al. figured, "Well, if we're going to have people down there next to the exotic matter anyway..."

I wouldn't presume that yet. So far he's CTTed twice with causing a paradox.

Once the LBs started skipping, a loop in time was created as happens with all TTers.
This loop, and every event that it contains are self-consistent and have always happened. So now Dan has always tt'ed back to 2001/4 and spoken to Des in the hatch. So far no paradox.

Now Des is off the Island (in what is presumably the present), and remembers Dan's message. Still no paradox.
Point well taken, but I feel very strongly that this where there headed. Otherwise, Ms. Hawking's intervention is unnecessary and Desmond's "exception" meaningless.
But Desmond could?

Your thoughts on Desmond are the only ones I disagree with. We'll see if that truly is what they meant by "Desmond is special.".
But what other interpretation makes sense? Otherwise, I can't see anything particularly "special" about Desmond. BTW, it's not that Des lives in the multiverse -- he alone is governed by Li-Xin Li's Anti-Chronology Protection Conjecture.

No one can create paradox except Desmond, who is free of the universal law enforcing self-consistency. That's what Daniel was telling us. Desmond alone can change the "picture on the box."

The Island is a bizarro-reverso world. On the Island, you can change your past, but you cannot change the future.

This is actually consistent with the story of Cassandra and the Sack of Troy. Cassandra found favor with the god Apollo, and he gave her sight of the future. What he wanted in return, though, was for her to become his concubine; he wanted her to relinquish her free will. She refused, and so he cursed her - she was forced to speak in rhyme, in such a way that no one could understand her. In such a way that she could not change what she foretold. It's not unlike what happens to Tam Lin when he slips into the world of Faerie, but that's a different (and much better) story.

The story of Cassandra describes "what it's like" to see the future. Seeing something that has "already happened", though it has yet to happen, necessarily entails a loss of "free will". The picture has been painted, so to say, if what she sees is indeed "true." If she were able to change the picture, if she wants her free will, then the picture she has seen is no longer the picture of the future - it is no longer "true", and she has not, in fact, seen the future.

Desmond is not like Cassandra - in fact, he is much more like us. The visions he sees of the future are not "fixed", they cannot be because we have seen that he has the ability to change such pictures. Rather, what Desmond sees is "probable". This is very much like our own ability to "imagine". We imagine a number of different futures of varying probability, based on what we currently know (which is always incomplete) and take actions that we expect will bring about the changes we prefer.

Ms. Hawking exhorts Desmond not to change the past. Desmond actually has this power, being free of time and space, but he doesn't really have that choice available to him. Because if Desmond changes his path to the Island, his unique and solitary path, he will not turn the key and he will not become unstuck, and hence he would completely undo himself.

So, if you ever find yourself becoming a time-traveler, be like Desmond. Don't change your past, and be mindful of the opportunities awaiting in the future.

Desmond wasn't the only one in and near the Swan when it imploded... Charlie, Locke, and Eko were also affected. Of course they're dead now.

The Purge must have something to do with sending the Dharmans CTTing... We already know from what Chang says during construction of the Orchid that time travel is the goal behind harnessing the pocket of exotic matter behind the rock. Not to kill Hitler...there are rules. What did they want to use time travel for and have they succeeded? And does the center station the Pearl who were watching and observing and recording changes make any more sense yet?

What did they want to use time travel for... ?

TT to the future?

It's the same reasoning behind why Daniel's message to past Desmond "arrives" simultaneously to future Desmond.
But it doesn't arrive simultaneously. It arrives to some random point 3 - 7 years later...

But it doesn't arrive simultaneously. It arrives to some random point 3 - 7 years later...

That's assuming the Island is still 2004/2005. I think we still have a lot learn about the relationship of time on and off the Island.

In addition, signals, messages (and bunnies) have a tendency to arrive before they left. Memories may be affected too.

Fascinating article!

Too bad they didn't stick to that when writing FBYE. If time was truly unmalleable they would never have had to invent their "course correction" nonsense...

Actually, I think the course correction was to give Desmond (and us) a buzzword to have a platform to spring off of. This snippet here:

With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and in the future), that's the end, it cannot be altered. `What has really happened cannot be undone'.

is stating basically that if a time machine is ever created, then the loop has always been there, but because it is a loop, and because of the discovered ability of time travel, some of these events have 'happened' out of order, but the course of events surrounding the very localized event that the time traveller influenced, things as grand as wars and as mundane as daily life, occurred in such a way that the localized happening did not affect anything else. It basically seems to be an argument of the negation of the butterfly effect.

Take a localized event, it doesn't matter what it is. You're walking down the street in 1950 when you take a shortcut into an alley. You meet a time traveller there. The world around you is going to go on throughout history, because the time traveller you meet is from your future. Your future is the time traveller's past, and while the time traveller is CHANGING your future, he's not making any changes that will affect the unfolding of the rest of the world, but it WOULD affect you and your family. Up until the point that the time traveller left, that effect that stems from you would effect things differently, but those things, too have always been affected.

Let's take the case of the red shoe man and Charlie. If you apply the self consistency principle, you would have to assume that the death of these people was an impetus for other events to occur, and as such, they HAD to die. There was no way around it. 'Their time had come.' But that's not to say that there couldn't be some interference in the way they died, or the timing. That's what Hawking is explaining to Desmond with the idea of 'course correction'. She could have saved the man, but at some point in the very near future, there was something that would have impeded her from being there, or being able to stop, because there were other events that HAD to happen as a result of his death. The same goes for Charlie, but the illustration in his case is that just because the future is set, meddling still can bring about other events that always happened.

Since the island was indeed discovered by Charles Widmore, even had Desmond not saved Charlie's life up until the entry of the code in the Looking Glass, someone else would have been able to enter it. By the same token, if Desmond had been able to save Charlie even after he entered the code, there would be some string of events where Desmond wasn't around to get the information on them from future flashes, and he would be unable to save Charlie. This, I feel, is what she is talking about when she speaks to the 'course correction' of the universe. The time loop article just pretty much puts into words everything else we've been seeing, and gives us a good idea where we're headed.
100%
But it doesn't arrive simultaneously. It arrives to some random point 3 - 7 years later...

That's because the initial event had not occurred. Remember, once the event actually occurs is when everything is set into place. Desmond didn't remember in the future until that moment, because at that moment, Daniel and Desmond's event was occurring.

[Re: Desmond only remembering Daniel years later.] That's because the initial event had not occurred. Remember, once the event actually occurs is when everything is set into place. Desmond didn't remember in the future until that moment, because at that moment, Daniel and Desmond's event was occurring.Daniel's event was happening in 2005. The Desmond who remembered was in 2008. The Desmond in the Hatch was in ~2001. It only seemed like one moment because of the editing.

Daniel's event was happening in 2005. The Desmond who remembered was in 2008. The Desmond in the Hatch was in ~2001. It only seemed like one moment because of the editing.

Yes, I understand the editing makes it look like one thing happened right after the other, but that's because it did... as far as Desmond is concerned. Desmond was in 2008 when Daniel addresses Desmond sometime between 2001-2004 before the Losties arrive, but because Desmond's "present" is in 2008, and because the memory Daniel "implants" in Desmond's 2001-2004 consciousness was not "already" there, Desmond remembers it in his present just as soon as it happens in the past. Desmond's uniqueness is that he is living his present in 2008 but is also on the island in 2001-2004... His consciousness becomes a conduit through which a message can be sent from the past to Desmond's present....and so as soon as Daniel speaks to him, Desmond is able to receive the message in his present consciousness in the form of a memory/dream-sent basically by means of CTT. The fact that Desmond is off the island and can help Daniel reach his mother is why Daniel decides that Desmond's duality of consciousness makes the perfect "pinhole" wormhole.

Daniel's event could not be happening in 2005 because he's talking to Desmond in a Hazmat suit.
Daniel is the one who changed (affected) the past...through Desmond...in 2001.

Why does Desmond not remember it until 2008?
Maybe Daniel and the Losties flashed to 2008 just prior, making that their 'real time'.

Desmond was in 2008 when Daniel addresses Desmond sometime between 2001-2004 before the Losties arrive, but because Desmond's "present" is in 2008, and because the memory Daniel "implants" in Desmond's 2001-2004 consciousness was not "already" there, Desmond remembers it in his present just as soon as it happens in the past.But the "present" is entirely relative. The 2001 Desmond is living in the present at that very moment. The 2005 Desmond who is helping Penny give birth is also living in the present. To the 2010 Desmond, who is also living in the present, the 2008 Desmond is already in the past and cannot suddenly have new memories.

I can't see how saying the 2008 Desmond is the definitive present Desmond when it's the 2005 Daniel making the time changes. I could possibly see the 2005 Desmond picking up the new memory, as Daniel and he would be in the same time, but that is not what happened. How on earth could Desmond's present be three years later than Daniel's?

As for consciousness time travel, we've only seen that happen twice. Once when he turned the failsafe key, and once when he left the island on the wrong heading. It stopped when he connected with his constant. We have no reason to believe it is still happening.

The only way this makes sense is if Desmond remembered something he'd previously forgotten that had happened all along, at a time convenient for the story.

Since the island was indeed discovered by Charles Widmore, even had Desmond not saved Charlie's life up until the entry of the code in the Looking Glass, someone else would have been able to enter it.
Des wasn't supposed to save Charlie, who wasn't supposed to deactivate the jammer. Jack wasn't supposed to call the freighter, and the Oceanic 6 weren't supposed to be rescued. Des messed things up royally by changing the "picture on the box."
Daniel's event could not be happening in 2005 because he's talking to Desmond in a Hazmat suit.
Daniel is the one who changed (affected) the past...through Desmond...in 2001.
Exactly. Any changes to the timeline have to be accomplished through Desmond.

No. Des wasn't supposed to save Charlie, who wasn't supposed to deactivate the jammer. Jack wasn't supposed to call the freighter, and the Oceanic 6 weren't supposed to be rescued. Des messed things up royally by changing the "picture on the box."

Exactly. Any changes to the timeline have to be accomplished through Desmond.


Can you imagine the guilt Des will feel once he realizes the cost of his longing for Penny?

Maybe a desperate journey will leave the pair in the cave.

Can you imagine the guilt Des will feel once he realizes the cost of his longing for Penny?

Maybe a desperate journey will leave the pair in the cave.
I like this! Des will need some convincing to go back willingly -- guilt might be just the thing.

Booga...maybe it's not a coincidence that Desmond is named after David Hume who theorized on causality.

Des wasn't supposed to save Charlie, who wasn't supposed to deactivate the jammer. Jack wasn't supposed to call the freighter, and the Oceanic 6 weren't supposed to be rescued. Des messed things up royally by changing the "picture on the box."

I can buy that the O6 were not supposed to leave the Island. Their having to go back, and their "work to do" seem to back this up. However, there are many other things to consider.

First is Ms. H's words to Desmond. Ms. H, the same women who is trying to get the O6 back, wanted Des to be on the Island. "Destiny" apparently had Des helping to bring 815 to the Island AND turn the key which precipitated all the freighter events and the O6 leaving.....The arrival of the freighter lead to the turning of the wheel AND to Dan being on the Island.

IMO the final goal of "what has to be because it's always been" is that the O6 AND Dan all have to be on the Island in whatever year the wheel has now turned to. This is the "when" in time that these people are needed. This makes me doubtful that the freighter was not supposed to be contacted.

If Charlie hadn't unjammed the signal:
1. Dan wouldn't be on the Island where I think he is needed.
2. The wheel wouldn't have been turned and the Island wouldn't be in a time "when"
the Losties and Dan are needed.
3. Aaron wouldn't be off the Island (where I believe he should be at this point).
4. Sun and Jin Yeon would be dead (which I don't think they're supposed to be)

The one gliche I can see is that Ben turned the wheel instead of Locke.

I can buy that the O6 were not supposed to leave the Island. Their having to go back, and their "work to do" seem to back this up.
Yep. That...and the constant refrain that they were "not supposed to leave..."
First is Ms. H's words to Desmond. Ms. H, the same women who is trying to get the O6 back, wanted Des to be on the Island. "Destiny" apparently had Des helping to bring 815 to the Island AND turn the key which precipitated all the freighter events and the O6 leaving.....
Ms. Hawking said Des was "supposed" to go to the Island and turn the key -- presumably to alleviate the threat of world annihilation. She also implied he was NOT "supposed" to save Charlie -- that's where Des deviated from destiny's path. If he had done as he was "supposed" to do, the key would have been turned, but contact would not have been made with the freighter -- or at least not the way that it happened.
The arrival of the freighter lead to the turning of the wheel AND to Dan being on the Island.
Hmmm...good point. I'm not 100% sure Dan was "supposed" to be on the Island, but it's admittedly looking likely that's the case. If so, here's what I speculate was "supposed" to happen. Dan, Charlotte, and Miles make it to the Island, but Keamy and Co. do not. Faraday's crew warns our Losties that Keamy and Co. plan to kill everyone on the Island, and Locke turns the Frozen Donkey Wheel. Et voila!

IMO the final goal of "what has to be because it's always been" is that the O6 AND Dan all have to be on the Island in whatever year the wheel has now turned to. This is the "when" in time that these people are needed. This makes me doubtful that the freighter was not supposed to be contacted.

Maybe we're on the wrong track...Yes, Desmond is the only one who can alter the past, and yes, he was probably the one responsible for the key events that have kept the time loop intact, but Michael may turn out to be the linchpin in the events that led to the O6 deviating from their destined path. If Michael had not decided to put the C4 in deep freeze mode, the freighter may have blown up sometime after the "O6 minus 2" had boarded the helicopter, but before they arrived at the freighter. Seeing the plume of smoke from the freighter, they probably would have gone back to the island, arriving just in time to join the rest of the lostaways in their flashes through time, and completing the loop just as it was "supposed" to happen. "The island" may have been the one with a Plan B, even formally dismissing Michael once his work had been done. The reason for altering the loop? Perhaps to set the wheels in motion for a new loop which would bring the O6 back to the island while leaving Aaron and Ji Yeon behind.

She also implied he was NOT "supposed" to save Charlie -- that's where Des deviated from destiny's path. I saw Charlie more as Desmond's " man in the red shoes." Des could only postpone the inevitable by saving Charlie just as Ms H. would have only been postponing the inevitable by warning the man in the red shoes. His attempts were futile.

The big question is...Did it make a difference that Charlie stayed alive long enough to unjam the signal?

I'm still leaning toward the entire "Freighter finding the Island, Keamy going haywire, Island "moving", O6 leaving and returning,......" series of events getting everyone to the when/where they "have to be because they always have" theory.

But who knows (and will we ever?) exactly which events played out smoothly along destiny's path and/or which had to be "course corrected" along the way.

If so, here's what I speculate was "supposed" to happen. Dan, Charlotte, and Miles make it to the Island, but Keamy and Co. do not. Faraday's crew warns our Losties that Keamy and Co. plan to kill everyone on the Island, and Locke turns the Frozen Donkey Wheel. Et voila! Could be. But then again, those three weren't so forthcoming or helpful UNTIL they knew Keamy was using the secondary protocol.

OT a little, but just what was the secondary protocol? What did Keamy set out to do? Manipulate a situation where Jacob or C.S would advise Ben or Locke to move the Island? Nah, he was just a hired thug.....It now seems that the "protocol" contained directions to the Orchid and instructions on FDW turning. Keamy was going to act as a stand in and turn the wheel himself if needed.


Maybe we're on the wrong track...
You're right, a lot of things could have happened differently and prevented the O6 from leaving......I guess we may just have to believe in destiny. If something happened that wasn't "supposed" to happen (b/c it never did happen) then course correction did or will get things back on track.

Sam G posted this at the quest - it's relevent here too - last paragraph mentions Novikov
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4303509.html

I saw Charlie more as Desmond's " man in the red shoes." Des could only postpone the inevitable by saving Charlie just as Ms H. would have only been postponing the inevitable by warning the man in the red shoes. His attempts were futile.
Charlie is definitely analogous to the man in the red shoes. But Ms. Hawking said more than just that his death was inevitable:
That man was supposed to die. That was his path just as it's your path to go to the island. You don't do it because you choose to, Desmond. You do it because you're supposed to
You're also ignoring Desmond's statement that not following his visions down to the last detail changes the "picture on the box."
DESMOND: If the flashes don't happen exactly how I saw them, the picture changes. I was supposed to let you die Charlie.
It is precisely this ability that makes him the "miraculous" exception to Faraday's rules of time travel -- the Desmond Exception. Again, if he can't change the future, Daniel's comment makes no sense.
I'm still leaning toward the entire "Freighter finding the Island, Keamy going haywire, Island "moving", O6 leaving and returning,......" series of events getting everyone to the when/where they "have to be because they always have" theory.
Naomi made it to the Island before the jammer was deactivated. So I think we can assume Fate would have found some way to get Charlotte, Dan, and Miles onto the Island, as well. It seems to me that deactivating the jammer primarily made it easier for Keamy and Co. to move back and forth from the ship and to coordinate their tactics. So, I'm guessing we wouldn't have seen a full-scale invasion in this alternate version of events...

I think what's important is that Flight 815 crashed on the island Because Flight 316 had already crashed on the island...by mimicking Flight 815... which had already crashed on the island... the circle of temporal causation had to be kept so Desmond had to make sure Flight 815 crashed on the Island so that Flight 316 would crash on the Island so that Flight 815 would crash on the Island... the future influences the past as much as the past influences the future...

Although, as we have seen... Ms. Hawking's goal was to have as much similar as Flight 815 as she could... (they could have gotten Walt too, but they didn't have to) so it wasn't so much who left as it was about how to get back. I think CS took the opportunity to get Aaron (and Ji Yeon?) off the Island because they would not have survived the side effects of EM exposure, having been exposed before their births.

Exactly. And we know their younger selves won't see their time-traveling counterparts, because, well, they haven't AFAWK.



I think you're probably dead on regarding Dan's intentions. Because he was funded by Widmore, perhaps it was Widmore who prompted the search for a Black Swan in the first place.

As a Black Swan might threaten the "fabric of the universe," Widmore must have had some serious motivation indeed. After all, without one, Novikov would presumably take care of the fabric.

I tend to think the button pushing was deathly serious. But why the notetakers in the Pearl?

Some scientist believe that watching an experiment changes the results. I believe some of the first experiments to suggest this involved light particles and how they reacted differently when they were being watched by a person.

It suggested that a person's will works on some level to disrupt/change the light particles path. The scientific observer brings his own desire and idea as to what he hopes to see as he watches the experiment, thus adding a variable.

I can see everything Richardstone had suggested as part of Dharma's goal as well, and that the Pearl fits in there with trying to use observers to help influence change in the experiment.

I'm glad we're getting into the Dharma half of the season, I'm looking forward to seeing some of the reasoning they have behind what they're doing. Also, what they're doing.