According the "rules of time travel" on the show, an event in the past could not take place until it happens in the future and is then taken back to the past.

So when Charlotte tells Daniel that he scared her in her past, that would be impossible because that part of her past has not taken place yet. In other words, Daniel doesn't meet Charlotte in her past until Locke turns the FDW and sends him back to 1974 where she is a little girl.

The two events (according to the "rules of time travel" on the show) could not have happened as revealed in tonight's episode.

Confused? Stand in line. There are lots of people ahead of you.

P. S. Go Vincent!

Arrow of Time rules need not apply when one is dislodged from time.

Whatever happened, happened! Why is this so confusing for people to get?

I believe you are confused. You are applying Desmond's new memory upload to everything that are TTers are doing. That only happened once and it was with Desmond, who the writers went out of their way to explain was very special. Everything else that has happened, has always happened. Faraday said it multiple times now. These characters are only fulfilling their destinies from their perspectives. Daniel and Co were always with Dharma for (at least) 3 years in the 70's. Period. No one else has to wait for them to do it, for them to remember them doing it. It's done. Period.

Whatever happened, happened!


You see there is a LOT that can be fit into "whatever happened, happened", including things that aren't "supposed to happen". ;)

I believe you are confused. You are applying Desmond's new memory upload to everything that are TTers are doing. That only happened once and it was with Desmond, who the writers went out of their way to explain was very special. Everything else that has happened, has always happened. Faraday said it multiple times now. These characters are only fulfilling their destinies from their perspectives. Daniel and Co were always with Dharma for (at least) 3 years in the 70's. Period. No one else has to wait for them to do it, for them to remember them doing it. It's done. Period.

You're right. I've kept myself from this debate for some time, because it can be so irritating... but you're right. Heck, I'm not even sure if it happened "the one time with Desmond" though... it just "seemed" that way because of the timing of the scenes. But whatever, that is neither here nor there... I'm tired of people inventing these "rules" and criticizing a story that hasn't even been told yet!!!

The way I understand it, "Whatever happened, happened" is all about perspective. What we're seeing is different "timelines" intersecting: Charlotte is from a different "timeline" than Daniel, for example. Bare in mind I use the word "timeline" very carefully, because in fact there is only "one timeline", which is the sum of all these "intersecting timelines".

So as far as Charlotte and Daniel is concerned, in her "timeline" she did meet Daniel when she was younger. Therefore, we know that Daniel, in his "timeline", will try to warn her against coming back to the island---an attempt to break the "rules of time travel" on the show---in an upcoming episode.

My wager: this season, in a Daniel-centric episode. ;)

Arrow of Time rules need not apply when one is dislodged from time.

What did you call me? I don't even know what that means!

All I am saying is that her past hadn't changed until Locke turned the wheel taking everyone including Daniel to her past (1974). And that didn't happen until after she died.1. Charlotte dies in Daniel's arms
2. Locke turns the wheel
3. Flash happens and Charlotte disappears while everyone goes back to 1974.
4. Daniel chases little red haired girl and scares her. (That by itself is bad enough.)
5. Years later, flash happens, Charlotte tells Daniel he scared her back in 1974.
6. Rinse, lather and repeat 1 thur 5 over and over again.
It can't happen the way the writers say it did. Unless... the little red haired girl is not Charlotte. In which case, Daniel scares the wrong little girl. Not that, I could see happening.

P. S. Where's Vincent when you need him to protect the children from a meany and wacked out time traveling physicist.

I believe you are confused. You are applying Desmond's new memory upload to everything that are TTers are doing. That only happened once and it was with Desmond, who the writers went out of their way to explain was very special. Everything else that has happened, has always happened. Faraday said it multiple times now. These characters are only fulfilling their destinies from their perspectives. Daniel and Co were always with Dharma for (at least) 3 years in the 70's. Period. No one else has to wait for them to do it, for them to remember them doing it. It's done. Period.



Well then, the easy answer to that is the major theme of the show: fate vs free will.

All I am saying is that her past hadn't changed until Locke turned the wheel taking everyone including Daniel to her past (1974). And that didn't happen until after she died.
1. Charlotte dies in Daniel's arms
2. Locke turns the wheel
3. Flash happens and Charlotte disappears and everyone goes back to 1974.
4. Daniel chases little red haired girl and scares her. (That by itself is bad enough.)
5. Years later, flash happens, Charlotte tells Daniel he scared her back in 1974.
6. Rinse, lather and repeat 1 thur 5 over and over again.
It can't happen the way the writers say it did. Unless... the little red haired girl is not Charlotte. In which case, Daniel scares the wrong little girl. Not that, I could see happening.


Where is the contradiction? Her past DIDN'T CHANGE. It just HAPPENED.

FROM CHARLOTTE'S POV:

She gets scared as a little girl
She remembers the previous event as she's about to die
She dies

FROM DAN'S POV:

Charlotte tells Dan that he's the scary man
Charlotte dies
Dan goes back in time and scares little Charlotte

There's nothing wrong with this.

What did you call me? I don't even know what that means!

All I am saying is that her past hadn't changed until Locke turned the wheel taking everyone including Daniel to her past (1974). And that didn't happen until after she died.1. Charlotte dies in Daniel's arms
2. Locke turns the wheel
3. Flash happens and Charlotte disappears while everyone goes back to 1974.
4. Daniel chases little red haired girl and scares her. (That by itself is bad enough.)
5. Years later, flash happens, Charlotte tells Daniel he scared her back in 1974.
6. Rinse, lather and repeat 1 thur 5 over and over again.
It can't happen the way the writers say it did. Unless... the little red haired girl is not Charlotte. In which case, Daniel scares the wrong little girl. Not that, I could see happening.

P. S. Where's Vincent when you need him to protect the children from a meany and wacked out time traveling physicist.

I'm sorry but you seem very confused. The past was never changed. Baby Charlotte met Daniel (aka scary man) when she was little. Daniel travelled to the past when Locke turned the wheel that last time. Adult Charlotte may have been dead but that has zero effect on her childhood self.

Then there's Daniel mumbling in this episode "I'm not going to tell her, i'm not going to tell her".

Maybe he's not going to tell her to leave now, she grows up normally on the Island and survives the purge because she was originally alive after it. Because of that she was popped out back into 2005, alive.

Like Locke.

Then there's Daniel mumbling in this episode "I'm not going to tell her, i'm not going to tell her".

Maybe he's not going to tell her to leave now, she grows up normally on the Island and survives the purge because she was originally alive after it. Because of that she was popped out back into 2005, alive.

Like Locke.

Except that he will. We've already seen that he will.

(And I know you disagree with what Dan says, but that's fitting the show to your theories, not your theories to the show. That IS how time works, even said by the writers. They said they laid down the rules through Dan so people knew that they weren't going to undo any of the previous seasons.)

Except that he will. We've already seen that he will.


But he's saying he won't. If I were Daniel I wouldn't tell her to leave now that I knew i'd failed. Pretty logical.

He's saying he won't, but he will. Something will make him. Desperation, probably.

Then there's Daniel mumbling in this episode "I'm not going to tell her, i'm not going to tell her".

Maybe he's not going to tell her to leave now, she grows up normally on the Island and survives the purge because she was originally alive after it. Because of that she was popped out back into 2005, alive.

Like Locke.

No. Not like Locke, unless I'm missing something. Locke wasn't reborn because of some change to the past (as far as we've been lead to believe). He's reborn because the island heals him, just like it did when he was paralyzed and when he was shot. There's nothing to suggest those "miracles" are related to time-travel.

I don't recall Daniel mumbling, but he's going to tell her. Why? Because she told him it already happened. I think the best he could hope for, is that he doesn't tell her, someone like Miles tells her, and she still comes back to the island and dies. Or no one tells her, and she still comes back to the island and dies.

I'm sticking with Slaughterhouse 5 rules.

No. Not like Locke, unless I'm missing something. Locke wasn't reborn because of some change to the past (as far as we've been lead to believe). He's reborn because the island heals him, just like it did when he was paralyzed and when he was shot. There's nothing to suggest those "miracles" are related to time-travel.

I don't recall Daniel mumbling, but he's going to tell her. Why? Because she told him it already happened. I think the best he could hope for, is that he doesn't tell her, someone like Miles tells her, and she still comes back to the island and dies. Or no one tells her, and she still comes back to the island and dies.

I'm sticking with Slaughterhouse 5 rules.


The major theme in this show is fate vs. free will, therefore i would not be so dismissive of someone (a la Desmond) breaking the chain.

The major theme in this show is fate vs. free will

But fate vs. free will is entirely separate from time mechanics. Time will occur the same way regardless of whether fate or free will reigns.

But fate vs. free will is entirely separate from time mechanics. Time will occur the same way regardless of whether fate or free will reigns.


The idea of The Arrow of Time is that everything is predetermined. This is a problem in science, apparently.

The idea of The Arrow of Time is that everything is predetermined. This is a problem in science, apparently.

No, the Arrow of Time is a scientific concept that basically means "time, overall, moves in a direction."

Time goes forward (from an outside perspective). Imagine a literal arrow. Here's the difference (and why they don't really matter):

Fate would say that the entire arrow was already drawn. Nothing that has been drawn can change.

Free will would say that the arrow was constantly being drawn. Nothing that has been drawn can change.

Same conclusion, different paths. Therefore, it's irrelevant.

No, the Arrow of Time is a scientific concept that basically means "time, overall, moves in a direction."

Time goes forward (from an outside perspective). Imagine a literal arrow. Here's the difference (and why they don't really matter):

Fate would say that the entire arrow was already drawn. Nothing that has been drawn can change.

Free will would say that the arrow was constantly being drawn. Nothing that has been drawn can change.


Would you say then that the left behinders were following the Arrow of Time while they were time-skipping?

Would you say then that the left behinders were following the Arrow of Time while they were time-skipping?

Yes, both macroscopically (to the outside world) and microscopically (individually).

Macroscopically, time is going forward, and the group is just appearing at different points along that arrow. Microscopically, their lives are being lived in a forward direction, as well. Combine the two and you have the whole picture: people who are living their lives normally, just at different points on the macroscopic arrow.

Would you say then that the left behinders were following the Arrow of Time while they were time-skipping?

If you think of the arrow as a line, they were moving back and forth along it. However, they were not branching off the arrow (like a limb with different branches). They were just hopping back and forth along the same (n)arrow path.

Take the straight arrow and loop it in on itself, over and over. You'll get something that looks like spiral. Like a record, with grooves. This is where Daniel's analogy comes in. If you play a record from the outer edge, it will always go through all the songs in order until you get to the center (end) of the record. You can skip around the record, but the songs stay the same.

Well then we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel they were not following the Arrow of Time when they were skipping.

They're not "de-aging," therefore their individual arrows are going forward. Time, overall, goes forward, therefore the macroscopic arrow is going forward. That's how it is. It's a single line, overall.

They're not "de-aging,"


They wouldn't de-age outside the arrow of time. They would be static.

They wouldn't de-age outside the arrow of time. They would be static.

Fine. But we've seen that they ARE aging. Jin's hair growth, Sawyer's stubble. . .they're aging, therefore they're not static.

Q.E.D.

Fine. But we've seen that they ARE aging. Jin's hair growth, Sawyer's stubble. . .they're aging, therefore they're not static.


Circumstantial evidence at best.

I don't mean they are static now, just when they were skipping.

Circumstantial evidence at best.

I don't mean they are static now, just when they were skipping.

Okay, now you're making even less sense to me.

When they were skipping, they were experiencing things exactly the same as now. Think of this as just one really long skip. If they were static when skipping, they would have to be static now, because it's the same scenario--they're in the past. That's all that's been happening. Since they're not static now, it's been disproven.

And circumstantial? How so? Sawyer shaved and stubble regrew. That's not circumstantial evidence. That's proof.

Okay, now you're making even less sense to me.

When they were skipping, they were experiencing things exactly the same as now. Think of this as just one really long skip


They are not skipping now.

Here's my definition of the skips:

They go elsewhere in time.

Period.

There's nothing about the previous skips that's different from now. Nothing.

Let's say that another random skip happens, for whatever reason. They move in time. That, then, just becomes another skip, even if it is 3 years apart. And they were aging in that 3 years, therefore they were not static.

Well my definition of time skipping is different. Time skipping is what you do when the wheel is off it's axis. When it was turned completely (by Locke) it stopped. Miles even said that the last flash "felt different", "like an earthquake".

Now, tell me: What happens when the wheel is off its axis?

. . .They move elsewhere in time? Exactly.

Now, tell me: What happens when the wheel is off its axis?

. . .They move elsewhere in time? Exactly.


They don't just move elsewhere, they become "dislodged from time", as Daniel said in this episode. Though we cannot really trust a half crazy amnesiac.

If you go to the past, you've been dislodged from the normal progression.

If you go to the past, you've been dislodged from the normal progression.


I thought "whatever happened, happened"?

It did. I'm using "normal progression" to mean "no time jumps."

I tire of the semantics game. Will check in tomorrow though.

It's not a game of semantics. It's a "game" of logical progression. We're saying two very different things, but what I say has evidence from the show. You may, in the end, be correct, but there's nothing that you're basing anything on. Therefore, at this point, you've got a shaky foundation, at best.

What did you call me? I don't even know what that means!

All I am saying is that her past hadn't changed until Locke turned the wheel taking everyone including Daniel to her past (1974). And that didn't happen until after she died.1. Charlotte dies in Daniel's arms
2. Locke turns the wheel
3. Flash happens and Charlotte disappears while everyone goes back to 1974.
4. Daniel chases little red haired girl and scares her. (That by itself is bad enough.)
5. Years later, flash happens, Charlotte tells Daniel he scared her back in 1974.
6. Rinse, lather and repeat 1 thur 5 over and over again.
It can't happen the way the writers say it did. t.

Thats not right.:)

Something is preventing you from following this. There is no contradiction whatsoever. Its a circle in which no one event depends on the order of #1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. You could start at any number and it still makes sense.

It only gets contradicted if one of those events DOESNT happen--and they all did. Daniel has not told CS yet. I think people are assuming that this conversation will somehow be different than what originally happened. But it wont.

Daniel is not from the past--he does not change his actions from what he did the LAST time he was in the past because there is no last time he was in the past--this IS the time he was in the past and he will do what he always did. This is not mind time travel where daniel is going into his body in the past and making different choices.

Anyway, I dont expect everyone will get this--but this type of time travel hold no paradoxes. Its simply a logical chain of events.

See I had a problem with all this time travel stuff when it started as well. I now understand what people are saying when they say the what happened, always happened. It eased my mind. Because Charlotte told Daniel that he scared her as a child, we know that it happened. He's saying he wont right now but at some point, somehow, he will.

I think you have to look at it like we are only seeing pieces of the big picture from their perspective. Yeah, Locke hadn't turned the wheel yet allowing them to stop in 1974 when Charlotte tells Daniel about him scaring her as a child. However, in the big picture, we know that those events do happen.

All I am saying is that her past hadn't changed until Locke turned the wheel taking everyone including Daniel to her past (1974). And that didn't happen until after she died.1. Charlotte dies in Daniel's arms
2. Locke turns the wheel
3. Flash happens and Charlotte disappears while everyone goes back to 1974.
4. Daniel chases little red haired girl and scares her. (That by itself is bad enough.)
5. Years later, flash happens, Charlotte tells Daniel he scared her back in 1974.
I think you are mistaken. "The rules of time" are that the past can never be changed. The order of events depend on an individual's perspective.

The order of events for Charlotte were:


She is scared by a crazy man as a child
Time passes.
She grows up and remembers being scared, and tells Daniel she thinks that man was him.
She dies.

The order of events for Daniel were:


Charlotte tells him about being scared as a child.
Charlotte dies.
He jumps in time.
He scares young Charlotte.

But the important thing to remember is that none of this changes or repeats. The only thing that is relative is the order in which things are experienced by different individuals, when time travel is involved.

The thing that confused me the most about the little girl in the barracks was that according to Ben's information, Charlotte was born in 1979. If they're truly in 1974, she wouldn't have been born yet and therefore the little girl that Daniel saw couldn't have been her. Unless there's some other time skip that we're unaware of, I don't see how he could have warned her given what we know so far.

[/indent]I think you are mistaken. "The rules of time" are that the past can never be changed. The order of events depend on an individual's perspective.

The order of events for Charlotte were:


She is scared by a crazy man as a child
Time passes.
She grows up and remembers being scared, and tells Daniel she thinks that man was him.
She dies.

The order of events for Daniel were:


Charlotte tells him about being scared as a child.
Charlotte dies.
He jumps in time.
He scares young Charlotte.



5. Time passes
6. He ends up an amnesiac, crying in front of a TV, knowing only subconsiously that his younger self is about to embark on this ill-fated adventure.
:cool:

The thing that confused me the most about the little girl in the barracks was that according to Ben's information, Charlotte was born in 1979. If they're truly in 1974, she wouldn't have been born yet and therefore the little girl that Daniel saw couldn't have been her. Unless there's some other time skip that we're unaware of, I don't see how he could have warned her given what we know so far.

I think this is (sort of)addressed in another thread. There are a few possibilities (other than time paradox / writer's goof):
1. It's not Charlotte. Just a red-headed girl. Maybe a sister, maybe not.
2. Ben's info (or his recollection of it) is off.

The thing that confused me the most about the little girl in the barracks was that according to Ben's information, Charlotte was born in 1979. If they're truly in 1974, she wouldn't have been born yet and therefore the little girl that Daniel saw couldn't have been her. Unless there's some other time skip that we're unaware of, I don't see how he could have warned her given what we know so far.

Wow you're right. I remember that now because I thought, oh wow, Charlotte is only a little younger than me. Last night we saw little Charlotte in 1974. It's possible that it wasn't her but then that means that Daniel had to be around until after her birth in 1979 or come back to the island somehow at that time. Or it could have been an older sister or something.

I think it was Charlotte and she will turn out to be Annie. We have seen that when Ben and Locke left the island, time had passed. I think this happened to Annie/Charlotte, she left in say 1977, but arrived in 1985, something like that. I think that when she was rambling about marrying an American, she was talking about Ben.

[/indent]I think you are mistaken. "The rules of time" are that the past can never be changed. The order of events depend on an individual's perspective.

Read the following as Stewie Griffin: "Then what about Jin meeting Danielle. He changed the past, right? What about that? Hmmmmmmm?"

Anyway...
If I am reading all this right, then all we have to do is figure out how Daniel went back in time and became Pierre Chang's cabana boy as we saw in "Because You Left."

I mean, he had to end up in the past somehow. So maybe all this makes sense if and only if Daniel went back into the past as they were digging the hole for the Orchid.

And it had to be at that time that he scared the bejesus out of Charlotte. I don't think he did so at that time because in this episode it appears as if he is recognizing Charlotte for the first time.

And if Daniel already did scare little Charlotte at that time, then she is about to have the wits scared out of her again. That is something I don't care to see.

Read the following as Stewie Griffin: "Then what about Jin meeting Danielle. He changed the past, right? What about that? Hmmmmmmm?"

No, he didn't.

No, he didn't.


Then why does she not appear to recognize him in previous seasons?

For reasons that have been explained over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's been 16 years on a crazy island! The human memory is NOT that good! Even Sawyer said that, after three years, he can barely remember what Kate looked like.

I'd like to think that i'd remember a person disappearing a couple of times in front of my eyes.

Danielle was crazy!!! This has been covered in previous week's threads.

We don't know if she remembers Jin. What we do know is that if she did recognize Jin in 2006, she would have probably thought she was crazy. To some extent, Danielle already knows she has issues and possibly would have been in denial about the whole thing. She might have thought she had deja vu.

Jin and Danielle always met. Daniel and Desmond always met. Assuming Charlotte's guess is accurate (it was a guess), she always met Daniel. What happened, happened.
100%
I'd like to think that i'd remember a person disappearing a couple of times in front of my eyes.

Even if you remembered it, you'd think you were crazy!! You would be in denial about it, rationalize it, block it out, think it was a dream, etc.

Danielle was crazy!!! This has been covered in previous week's threads.


Crazy doesn't equal amnesiac.

Thats not right.:)

Something is preventing you from following this. There is no contradiction whatsoever. Its a circle in which no one event depends on the order of #1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. You could start at any number and it still makes sense.

It only gets contradicted if one of those events DOESNT happen--and they all did. Daniel has not told CS yet. I think people are assuming that this conversation will somehow be different than what originally happened. But it wont.

Daniel is not from the past--he does not change his actions from what he did the LAST time he was in the past because there is no last time he was in the past--this IS the time he was in the past and he will do what he always did. This is not mind time travel where daniel is going into his body in the past and making different choices.

Anyway, I dont expect everyone will get this--but this type of time travel hold no paradoxes. Its simply a logical chain of events.

Unfortunately for you, this show contains numerous examples of paradoxes, alternate timelines, etc. But because they can be somehow tangentially attached to some action of Desmond's, who has been called "special" by Daniel, all is forgiven and your theory supposedly remains intact.

So forget the fact that this entire show is based on the fact that what was supposed to happen...didn't happen! The O6 were not supposed to leave the island (something changed in the past has affected the present) and when they did, it created massive problems that threaten the entire planet. And forget that the overall theme of the show involves a universal force of course correction. Just try and swallow the fact that this universal force is reserved for one singular person on the entire planet because he is the only one who can change anything.

As long as you can dismiss all of the above, then you can claim there are no paradoxes and there is just one timeline.

Now, I'm sorry that this thread is going back into the Jin/Danielle thing again, because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. And it certainly is not evidence of "sloppy writing" or other such nonsense. However this plays out, my bet is that the writers will have 99% of it wrapped up quite neatly by the end of the series.

And a single timeline may end up being the correct explanation. But with the arrogance and supreme confidence that is shown when it is being discussed, I really hope you guys end up being wrong.

OceanicCustomerService, I like the way you think.

Crazy doesn't equal amnesiac.

If you think that Danielle should be able to pick Jin out of a line-up because he spent a few hours with her 16 years ago. You must be insanely upset that Sawyer is forgetting what Kate's face looked liked after only three years. Also, he spent three months with her. Had sex with her. Lived through countless traumatic events that "should have" engraved her image into his brain.

She may not have been able to draw a picture of what he looked like before she saw him again, but if she knew him in the past she would instantly remember him when she met him again.

It's not like Sawyer doesn't recognize Kate now that she's back.

I'd like to think that i'd remember a person disappearing a couple of times in front of my eyes.

But you wouldn't. There was a study where a person asked for directions. While the directions were being given, people holding a big door walked between them, and the person that asked switched with someone else. No one noticed that it was a different person, and they kept giving directions.

And Kate was very important to Sawyer. Three years later, he can barely remember.

AND what did you expect Danielle to do? "OMG! YOU DISAPPEARED! COME BACK SO I CAN STUDY YOUR FACE, NOW!"

Human memory needs reinforcement because memory sucks. It's been shown numerous times in real life. You may think you'd remember, but you wouldn't. You may even think you could recall your friend's face from second grade, right now, but you'd most likely be wrong about something.

But you wouldn't. There was a study where a person asked for directions...


We need a study of people who see people disappear before their eyes.

It absolutely ridiculous to think she'd remember. Please, view the other million threads about this topic. They all contain at least one anecdote of something traumatic happening to somebody, but faces being forgotten entirely.

If someone disappeared in front of you, how well could you remember the face, being unable to study it once something weird happened? You wouldn't.

If I showed you a CD cover, then you looked away for a second, then I hid it, then you turned back around and it was gone, you wouldn't remember the CD cover 16 years later.

Sorry, don't buy it.

Why not? Because it doesn't sit nicely with your hypothesis? I'm sorry that memory doesn't work the way you want it to, but the fact is that it doesn't. Saying you "don't buy it" is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "La la la la la! I'm not listening!"

You're trying to fit parts of the show to your theory, not your theory to what we know of the show.

Actually, it's the reverse, since my theory was borne of the show and nothing contradicts it. If Danielle said she remembered, it would contradict. It's been made abundantly clear BY THE SHOW that Jin was there at that point in time on a single timeline. Therefore, he was always there. Whether or not Danielle doesn't remember due to simple memory loss combined with 16 years of freakish things occurring (which is somewhat supported by Sawyer's fading memories of Kate) or due to something else is up for debate. But there are two things that we know:

1. Jin didn't change anything because he was always there
2. Danielle didn't remember him.

Why 2 is true is up for debate, but anything that clashes with 1 is false. In other words, my theory fits the show as well as real life.

Sorry, don't buy it.

Quackers, two questions...
You don't buy Danielle simply not remembering Jin. Fine, that's your right as a viewer.
Are you o.k. with her remembering him and not saying anything about it?

Because unless they had an interaction off camera, she doesn't acknowledge having met Jin before either with a wink or sentence. So the show tells us she doesn't remember him. We have to accept this fact and move on. Even if this interaction was retrofitted, I'm ok with it. It's not a deal breaker for me. Is it for you?

PS: This is a thread about Daniel, not Danielle, but whatever :)

Quackers, two questions...
You don't buy Danielle simply not remembering Jin. Fine, that's your right as a viewer.
Are you o.k. with her remembering him and not saying anything about it?


Of course.

Of course.

Ok. I can live with that. Let's say for the record that Danielle remembered Jin, but didn't say anything because she never said anything because as we know....
Whatever happened, happened. (or)
She knew that this Jin hadn't skipped yet and didn't want to interfere with his path.

Then if Danielle remembered and didn't mention anything, as you accept, then Jin was always in the past. There you go.

Ok. I can live with that. Let's say for the record that Danielle remembered Jin, but didn't say anything because she never said anything because as we know....
Whatever happened, happened. (or)
She knew that this Jin hadn't skipped yet and didn't want to interfere with his path.


I don't know that whatever happened, happened. OceanicCustomerService's post # 55 sums up my feeling on that matter.

Then if Danielle remembered and didn't mention anything, as you accept, then Jin was always in the past. There you go.

Conflict resolution. Gotta love that.
These things always happened. If they didn't, then how would Richard have been at Locke's birth? He wouldn't have. You just have to think of the future as being as "real" as we perceive the past as being.

I'm 29 years old. If 39 year old me knocks on my door and punches me in the face, that's ok. As long as when I'm 39 I figure out a way to go back in time 10 years and punch myself in the face...all is ok and the dreaded paradox is avoided and my destiny is fulfilled. If I do not do this before I turn 40....we have problems :)

Alright, then. Here are my thoughts on the crucial argument of post 55.

So forget the fact that this entire show is based on the fact that what was supposed to happen...didn't happen! The O6 were not supposed to leave the island (something changed in the past has affected the present) and when they did, it created massive problems that threaten the entire planet.

The reason they left the island is Desmond's interference (Desmond saved Charlie, who contacted Penny, which is how the boat found them adrift, which is how they were able to leave). Therefore, applying the idea that Desmond can adjust the rules, there's no violation.

I don't know that whatever happened, happened. OceanicCustomerService's post # 55 sums up my feeling on that matter.

Desmond is "special." Whatever that means. So take him out of the equation.
Daniel Faraday, our resident time travel expert, has said numerous times "whatever happened, happened and we can't change the past." If, after all this reaffirming of this statement, it turns out not to be the case I'm going to be EXTREMELY pissed off at this show. It's one thing to make us think the 815ers were battling hillbillies for a year only to discover they are civilized people. That was a great twist. To constantly explain the "rules" of what we are dealing with only to say "just kidding. it's actually like this now." That would be the dreaded shark jumper. It's confusing enough to follow and keep up with while Daniel is helping us. To make Daniel be wrong would kill all credibility for me.

Alright, then. Here are my thoughts on the crucial argument of post 55.



The reason they left the island is Desmond's interference (Desmond saved Charlie, who contacted Penny, which is how the boat found them adrift, which is how they were able to leave). Therefore, applying the idea that Desmond can adjust the rules, there's no violation.


That would be the same as saying "whatever happened, happened" except that Desmond changed everything.

None of the things we've witnessed in the Season 5 past, though, is affected by Desmond. Things affected by Desmond may (note: may) be able to change, not everything.

All the events occurring now happened because Ben moved the island. He did so because of the freighter folk. The freighter folk arrived because Charlie turned off the jammer. Charlie turned off the jammer because Desmond continually meddled in his affairs.

All the events occurring now happened because Ben moved the island. He did so because of the freighter folk. The freighter folk arrived because Charlie turned off the jammer. Charlie turned off the jammer because Desmond continually meddled in his affairs.

The freighter folk were already there. I highly doubt they were never going to go to the island, given that those were their explicit instructions. The process may have been expedited, sure, but it's reasonable to assume the result is the same (or at least not impossible within the rules provided).

All the events occurring now happened because Ben moved the island. He did so because of the freighter folk. The freighter folk arrived because Charlie turned off the jammer. Charlie turned off the jammer because Desmond continually meddled in his affairs.

It may be a little of both.
Maybe Ben always turned the wheel that sent Locke back in time because Locke showed up in 1954 and led Alpert to his own birth. We can conclude that Locke always was in 1954 after the island was moved. Desmond may have changed the fact that the O6 could leave the island before the skipping and now they must return to fulfill their destinies or the universe will collapse in on itself.

It may be a little of both.
Maybe Ben always turned the wheel that sent Locke back in time because Locke showed up in 1954 and led Alpert to his own birth. We can conclude that Locke always was in 1954 after the island was moved. Desmond may have changed the fact that the O6 could leave the island before the skipping and now they must return to fulfill their destinies or the universe will collapse in on itself.


I completely agree that it may be a little of both. What I do not know is what is set in stone and what Desmond changed.

I'm sure we'll find out though.

What we can be sure is set in stone is the past in which Desmond is not involved, which implies that the wheel's turn is set in stone. What this does NOT imply, however, is the path that caused the wheel to turn.

Yes. We don't know if Ben chose to turn the wheel in an iteration before Desmond interfered and caused a threat to the island which necessitated turning the wheel.

Perhaps before Desmond interfered, Ben just got bored one day and turned the wheel on a lark, preferring the arid climate of Tunisia over the humid climate of the island.

Read the following as Stewie Griffin: "Then what about Jin meeting Danielle. He changed the past, right? What about that? Hmmmmmmm?"

No, he definitely didn't change the past. He was the only reason she was still alive in 2004. If Jin hadn't been there, she would have gone down the smokey hole with the rest of the crew. As for the memory issue, I think it would have been extraordinarily unrealistic for her to be able to recognize him again after 16 years, only having met him one time.

Anyway...
If I am reading all this right, then all we have to do is figure out how Daniel went back in time and became Pierre Chang's cabana boy as we saw in "Because You Left."

I mean, he had to end up in the past somehow. So maybe all this makes sense if and only if Daniel went back into the past as they were digging the hole for the Orchid.

And it had to be at that time that he scared the bejesus out of Charlotte. I don't think he did so at that time because in this episode it appears as if he is recognizing Charlotte for the first time.

And if Daniel already did scare little Charlotte at that time, then she is about to have the wits scared out of her again. That is something I don't care to see.
I'm not sure I'm following you. We saw Daniel go into the past in the flash when Locke turned the wheel. He went to 1974. Sometime after 1974, they'll be digging the Orchid station and Daniel will be on the construction crew, just like Juliette is on the mechanics crew. And sometime after 1974 he will scare Charlotte.
100%
I'd like to think that i'd remember a person disappearing a couple of times in front of my eyes.
Remembering the event is a completely different feat than recognizing the person in a crowd. I remember plenty of events from 16 years ago, but I would never remember a face for that long of someone I met once or twice. If that person disappeared in front of me, or turned into a rabbit, or anything else, that wouldn't make their face more memorable.

Yes. We don't know if Ben chose to turn the wheel in an iteration before Desmond interfered and caused a threat to the island which necessitated turning the wheel.

Perhaps before Desmond interfered, Ben just got bored one day and turned the wheel on a lark, preferring the arid climate of Tunisia over the humid climate of the island.

Again, the freighter folk were still there, so in anti-Desmond iteration, I would imagine that the threat would be the same, the timing would just be slightly different.

Unfortunately for you, this show contains numerous examples of paradoxes, alternate timelines, etc. But because they can be somehow tangentially attached to some action of Desmond's, who has been called "special" by Daniel, all is forgiven and your theory supposedly remains intact.

So forget the fact that this entire show is based on the fact that what was supposed to happen...didn't happen! The O6 were not supposed to leave the island (something changed in the past has affected the present) and when they did, it created massive problems that threaten the entire planet. And forget that the overall theme of the show involves a universal force of course correction. Just try and swallow the fact that this universal force is reserved for one singular person on the entire planet because he is the only one who can change anything.
I don't think those things are true. Desmond cannot change the past any more than anyone else. That's not what makes him special. What makes him special is that his memory flits around in time, instead of working in the normal linear way.

Sure what is "supposed to happen" doesn't always happen. That's life. And that's what Course Correction tries to make happen. However, the future DOES always happen, and cannot be changed.

I don't think those things are true. Desmond cannot change the past any more than anyone else. That's not what makes him special. What makes him special is that his memory flits around in time, instead of working in the normal linear way.

I think the safest bet is to say that we don't know what Desmond can or cannot do, so every possibility should be taken into account.

I think the safest bet is to say that we don't know what Desmond can or cannot do, so every possibility should be taken into account.


I agree 100%. :biggrin:

I think the safest bet is to say that we don't know what Desmond can or cannot do, so every possibility should be taken into account.
Fair enough. I'm going to freak out if Desmond CAN change the past, though. That would ruin their whole anti-paradox thing. Maybe I'll send the question to Darlton and see if they're willing to clear that up for us.

Well, if Desmond CAN change the past, that actually fits really nicely with explaining how the Oceanic Six left, even when they were not supposed to go.

If Desmond CAN'T change the past, that would seem to imply that, while the past is written in stone, the future is still being written, explaining how Charlie's death was postponed, assuming they were at the very point being written.

Now, if we assume the consciousness was moving, it had to have come from the future to cause a change in the past. Therefore, unless I missed something, this seems to prove that Desmond CAN change the past.

Isn't it nice how that works out? I didn't even know where this post was going before I wrote that.

EDITED TO ADD:

That also seems to imply that Desmond can branch that one timeline into two timelines (but only where Desmond has affected it), which would mean that his consciousness would not only be jumping between past, present, and future, but would actually be jumping between the past, present, future, and alternate future (again, only possible due to Desmond).

And this is where I call it a night. . .I'll be back on in the afternoon.

Well, if Desmond CAN change the past, that actually fits really nicely with explaining how the Oceanic Six left, even when they were not supposed to go.

If Desmond CAN'T change the past, that would seem to imply that, while the past is written in stone, the future is still being written, explaining how Charlie's death was postponed, assuming they were at the very point being written.

Now, if we assume the consciousness was moving, it had to have come from the future to cause a change in the past. Therefore, unless I missed something, this seems to prove that Desmond CAN change the past.

Isn't it nice how that works out? I didn't even know where this post was going before I wrote that.

I don't see how the O6 leaving although they weren't "supposed to" needs explaining. It's not that they didn't leave in the future, but then they did... it's just that they weren't "supposed to".

And I don't think that it's possible that the future "is still being written" either. If that were the case, people from the future couldn't come and visit you. It all has to exist already. To me, all that implies is that Desmond's flashes were not of the future... only of what the future would be if he didn't act... but he did act... so that's not what the future was.

Ughhh... I need to try to stop thinking about it and just see what happens. :confused:

Heh heh.

I'm not sure I'm following you. We saw Daniel go into the past in the flash when Locke turned the wheel. He went to 1974. Sometime after 1974, they'll be digging the Orchid station and Daniel will be on the construction crew, just like Juliette is on the mechanics crew. And sometime after 1974 he will scare Charlotte.

You're right. I forgot that the DI was digging the Orchid in 1974. I first thought that the digging happened before 1974. Now it makes sense.
100%
I think the safest bet is to say that we don't know what Desmond can or cannot do, so every possibility should be taken into account.

Yeah but... that sounds like cheating. The time travel rules should be easy to figure out. It is after all, only a story telling device. Or is it? Hmmm.

Somehow we've gotten onto Desmond, but it's relevant...

I am also with the camp who's opinion is that Desmond doesn't change the future. He sees the possible outcomes, but inevitably chooses the one that is supposed to happen. If he's playing 3 card monte, he can narrow it down to two, but still can only choose one card. He can't go back in time, and change his choice!!

So as far as the situation between Desmond and Charlie and escape from the island, I think it goes like this:

1a. Desmond saves Charlie, which allows Charlie to stop the jammer, which allows for Charlie to find out it's not Penny's boat. Naomi was already on the island, so the freighter would have found them no matter what (I'm not quite remembering how Desmond saving Charlie from the arrow trap impacted things).
1b. If Desmond didn't save Charlie, someone else would have swam down to the Looking Glass. Maybe Desmond alone. Maybe Desmond and Sawyer or something. Somehow that Jammer would have been destroyed (maybe by Bonnie or Mikhail's grenade in a different sequence of events). The universe would have course corrected so that the end result would be the same. But it didn't happen this way, and it couldn't happen this way. It only happened the way it happened.

2. Desmond remembering Penny's # and calling Penny is what actually saves the O6 from drifting aimlessly through the sea. This is a perfect example of what the producers have been talking about. Desmond's body did not travel back in time and change anything. His mind is back in that time and he is remembering events.

As someone said before, if TPTB change the rules, it would really cheapen the show.

I posted this in another thread, and I realize it doesn't really have to do with the OP, but... hopefully it will make sense in this context as well.

I'm not sure if the inclusion of Desmond being "special" so early on was the best idea, especially since they were very vague on how his "specialness" actually affects past/future events. TPTB said that we should assume that Desmond's experiences in the past during "Flashes Before Your Eyes" were actually happening in real time, and that he was getting a "do-over" of sorts, but course correction steered him away from changing his ultimate path, which was to break up with Penny, sail to the Island and push the button until 815 crashed.

I do think that "course correction" only applies to Desmond, as strange as it would be that ONE person in all of humanity has the ability to alter past events by reliving them and making different choices. It is specifically because he can relive events that his path would need course correction. Everyone else, from their own perception, is living in a static timeline. Desmond can actively jump back into a previous moment in his own life, yet still be aware of what happened afterwards and theoretically make new decisions. These events are the only events that need to be "course corrected".

Only time will tell exactly how this applies to Charlie's death and the events that led to the O6 leaving the Island. It seems in the context of the show that Charlie would have died being struck by lightning if not for Desmond's interaction, which could only have happened because Desmond saw it in a flash. We don't know if these "flashes" are the future that should have been, or if they were possible events that would have occurred if Desmond had changed his own past and made the decision to not enter the sailing race. It's almost like by living the same event twice, his brain was made aware of all the possibilities that could occur by various course corrections, corrections which are centered around the event that Desmond relived.

Remember, Desmond did interact with Charlie and told him about the future during "Flashes Before Your Eyes". If he was "reliving" this event, and on his first time experiencing those events he never talked to Charlie, then that could link them in a sort of course correction chain of events, creating a possible alternate timeline which, if rendered true, could destroy the world. Charlie was not supposed to be struck by lightning, but if he HAD been, the alternate timeline would have been rendered true. Desmond's flashes were the universe's way of course correcting his OWN actions to fit the events that would, should, did and WILL transpire.

Instead of responding individually to each of these posts, let me just ask this. Are you now aware that even among all of you who claim to subscribe to the same "single timeline theory", none of you can agree on exactly how that is applied within the context of the show? Can Desmond change the past? Can he change the future? Is he special? Does the universe just course correct Desmond?

There is a good reason that you can't agree on the rules - there are none! Have you not watched this show long enough to know that one answer brings up 3 more questions? This show maintains mystery for a reason. The producers have said that things we see won't change due to time travel. This is to maintain the story telling integrity of the show. They have never said that nothing in the past can be changed. Big difference!

To maintain that you have it all figured out, despite that none of you can agree on how it works, is arrogant. To say that if the supposed "rules" that you believe in aren't followed means that the writers have done a poor job is just plain silly.

Instead of responding individually to each of these posts, let me just ask this. Are you now aware that even among all of you who claim to subscribe to the same "single timeline theory", none of you can agree on exactly how that is applied within the context of the show? Can Desmond change the past? Can he change the future? Is he special? Does the universe just course correct Desmond?

There is a good reason that you can't agree on the rules - there are none! Have you not watched this show long enough to know that one answer brings up 3 more questions? This show maintains mystery for a reason. The producers have said that things we see won't change due to time travel. This is to maintain the story telling integrity of the show. They have never said that nothing in the past can be changed. Big difference!

To maintain that you have it all figured out, despite that none of you can agree on how it works, is arrogant. To say that if the supposed "rules" that you believe in aren't followed means that the writers have done a poor job is just plain silly.

Well, I can't vouch for everyone, but I never claimed to "have it all figured out". It is impossible for us to know exactly where the show is going, since we are not the ones writing it. All we can do is use information from the show to make educated guesses as to how it is going to work.

Are you trying to say that we should all just throw our hands up in the air, say "Well, I must be wrong!" and turn off our brains? It's this kind of back and forth discussion that I come to the Fuse for. Or that the people who believe that the "rules" Daniel laid out are mostly functional are inherently wrong simply because we haven't seen incontrovertable proof that it is correct? Isn't that a bit arrogant? o_O;

Of course we don't know what the deal is with Desmond. We've only seen him a handful of times this season, and there was one single incident of "specialness". Maybe he's not special. Maybe there are 238472398472 different timelines. Maybe there is only one.

Basically, you're saying that no one can ever be "right" because we don't have complete proof. This is true. But EVERYONE can speculate. Would you rob us of that freedom? =P

Yeah but... that sounds like cheating. The time travel rules should be easy to figure out. It is after all, only a story telling device. Or is it? Hmmm.


The time travel rules are easy to figure out. It's Desmond's ability that is in question--otherwise, how it works for anyone else is understood.

Instead of responding individually to each of these posts, let me just ask this. Are you now aware that even among all of you who claim to subscribe to the same "single timeline theory", none of you can agree on exactly how that is applied within the context of the show? Can Desmond change the past? Can he change the future? Is he special? Does the universe just course correct Desmond?

I don't know what you've been reading, but we DO know how it works in the context of the show. We DON'T know Desmond's ability. We DO know how it works for everything else.

There is a good reason that you can't agree on the rules - there are none! Have you not watched this show long enough to know that one answer brings up 3 more questions? This show maintains mystery for a reason. The producers have said that things we see won't change due to time travel. This is to maintain the story telling integrity of the show. They have never said that nothing in the past can be changed. Big difference!

They also said they introduced Daniel's character to explain the time problems that would be occuring to the audience.


To maintain that you have it all figured out, despite that none of you can agree on how it works, is arrogant. To say that if the supposed "rules" that you believe in aren't followed means that the writers have done a poor job is just plain silly.


Again, we all understand when DESMOND IS NOT INVOLVED. To disagree with what the writers have said and with the character whose main role was to explain this very phenomenon just because you don't like it is arrogant.

The show has been following this rule with the exception of ONE instance, and that instance involved Desmond. Everything that did NOT involve Desmond follows. There have been instances where the "multiple timelines" theory have been shown to be FALSE in the show (i.e. Richard and Locke), but you conveniently overlook them because you don't like it.

So, to repeat: Time travel is understood. Desmond's ability is not.

Instead of responding individually to each of these posts, let me just ask this. Are you now aware that even among all of you who claim to subscribe to the same "single timeline theory", none of you can agree on exactly how that is applied within the context of the show? Can Desmond change the past? Can he change the future? Is he special? Does the universe just course correct Desmond?

There is a good reason that you can't agree on the rules - there are none! Have you not watched this show long enough to know that one answer brings up 3 more questions? This show maintains mystery for a reason. The producers have said that things we see won't change due to time travel. This is to maintain the story telling integrity of the show. They have never said that nothing in the past can be changed. Big difference!

To maintain that you have it all figured out, despite that none of you can agree on how it works, is arrogant. To say that if the supposed "rules" that you believe in aren't followed means that the writers have done a poor job is just plain silly.


Hear, hear!!

I just watched "Flashes before your eyes". In that episode, Desmond doesn't change anything. It's entirely possible that he lived those moments before exactly like they happened. Well actually, he only lives it once, his conciousness is just jumping.

In the end he gets hit instead of the bartender, but he could just have remembered it wrong.

When he tries to save Charlie he seems to change the future, but the universe is course correcting, and the end result is eventually the same. Or it could be that his flashes are only one of many possible futures, but what actually happens (Charlie eventually drowning) is the timeline that is being chosen.

Think of yourself walking through a city. Out of many possible paths you can only walk one. That is the timeline where "Whatever happened, happened".

Well I think we shall soon know the truth behind the words "Whatever happened, happened".

"Whatever happened, happened" is the title of 5x11 - the Daniel centric episode.

Well I think we shall soon know the truth behind the words "Whatever happened, happened".

"Whatever happened, happened" is the title of 5x11 - the Daniel centric episode.

Sweet. I've been trying to keep myself relatively spoiler free, but I couldn't resist and I'm glad I didn't. Quackers, meet you back here in 4 weeks and maybe by then one of us will be proven right. :)

...I so hope I'm right :lipsseal:

Basically, you're saying that no one can ever be "right" because we don't have complete proof. This is true. But EVERYONE can speculate. Would you rob us of that freedom? =P

Maybe I should have responded individually. You're actually making my point for me. Thank you.

Arguing the single timeline theory is completely valid. It may very well end up to be proven. My beef is with those who simply dismiss any other theories out of hand because I believe there is still room for argument. I can't count the number of times people with differing views on this topic have been simply told "No, you're wrong."

I think that Ben's info on Char is obviously just the info on her 'post-island' persona, so those 4-6 years difference (depends on how old you think the likely child CL in LF was) doesn't pose a problem.

off-topic, but in-threadwhat Desmond changed.

I'm not sure he changed anything regarding Charlie, so much as he saw the possible future & took actions to avert that outcome. Changing what would have happened is not the same as changing what has happened. Charlie was never actually killed by the arrow through the throat, despite the clarity of Desmond's vision, because Desmond helped him avoid that outcome.

And, yes it's hard to discuss the TT aspects relating to Dan & Char without responding to these other examples (or non-examples in some cases) that come up. Sorry.

I think when Dan meets Des at the hatch, he's not concerned with breaking the 'what happened' rule as much as he is wondering if Des' special quality will allow the message to 'get through' (which it does).

I don't know what you've been reading, but we DO know how it works in the context of the show. We DON'T know Desmond's ability. We DO know how it works for everything else.

What was I saying about being too sure of yourself?

They also said they introduced Daniel's character to explain the time problems that would be occuring to the audience.

I do have to admit that I don't keep up with every single podcast, so please forgive me and post a transcript of this statement. I only ask because I've seen a number of people take what is said in a podcast and paraphrase and twist the comments until they fit their own theory which they KNOW is correct.

But here is one podcast quote that I am familiar with. From 2/28/08...

Damon Lindelof: Yeah, and Ms. Hawking basically explained those rules in the first episode, "Flashes Before Your Eyes" where she basically said that the universe has a way of course correcting, so even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before, somehow the sort of fabric of time like swoops in around you and fixes everything so things don't go off the rails.

"So even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before....." Say what? But, but, but, whatever happened, happened! How, how, how could you do something in the past that you didn't do before???!?!?!?!? And here we have a real explanation of the "rules" in my opinion. If you go back in time, you can change what was done before, but the universe will course correct your actions in order bring things back in line.


Again, we all understand when DESMOND IS NOT INVOLVED. To disagree with what the writers have said and with the character whose main role was to explain this very phenomenon just because you don't like it is arrogant.

Daniel is a character in the show. A human character. Not an omniscient narrator. I treat his actions and dialogue accordingly.

The show has been following this rule with the exception of ONE instance, and that instance involved Desmond. Everything that did NOT involve Desmond follows. There have been instances where the "multiple timelines" theory have been shown to be FALSE in the show (i.e. Richard and Locke), but you conveniently overlook them because you don't like it.

I don't overlook the Alpert/Locke scene at all. I've said in another thread that it was your best evidence. But in that thread I also asked if things work as you say, how did Locke ever tell Alpert when to save him? He had no idea what time period he was in before he flashed away again.

Additionally, I've asked why Ethan didn't recognize Locke or his name when he shot Locke. Locke had already proven himself to be an important person to the others in '54. But even more interesting is this. As I watched "Man Behind the Curtain" today, Richard had a very strange reaction to hearing that Locke was going to meet Jacob with Ben. He practically jumped out of his shoes. Now, if Locke had already met Alpert in '54 and told him that Jacob had sent him, why did he appear so surprised when Locke told him he was going to see Jacob?

Now, perhaps these things can be explained and still fit in your theory. But I think they leave enough room for doubt along with all of Desmond's inconsistencies.

So, to repeat: Time travel is understood. Desmond's ability is not.

Thanks so much for repeating that.

So, to repeat: Time travel is understood. Desmond's ability is not. Thanks so much for repeating that.


Oh, I don't know that either is understood.

"So even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before....." Say what? But, but, but, whatever happened, happened! How, how, how could you do something in the past that you didn't do before???!?!?!?!? And here we have a real explanation of the "rules" in my opinion. If you go back in time, you can change what was done before, but the universe will course correct your actions in order bring things back in line.

And the person Hawking said that to was..............
Here's a hint: Daniel's Rules don't apply to him. That's right! Desmond!

"...even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before, somehow the sort of fabric of time like swoops in around you and fixes everything so things don't go off the rails."

Desmond can do that. No one else that we know of can. The quote does not say that anyone can do it. But if one could, this is how it would work.

I don't overlook the Alpert/Locke scene at all. I've said in another thread that it was your best evidence. But in that thread I also asked if things work as you say, how did Locke ever tell Alpert when to save him? He had no idea what time period he was in before he flashed away again.And I answered you, with your own words. To recap, he knew he was between the plane falling and Eko burning it. A few weeks' span. This is why Alpert couldn't just be waiting there, the other question you asked.
Additionally, I've asked why Ethan didn't recognize Locke or his name when he shot Locke. Locke had already proven himself to be an important person to the others in '54.I gave an answer for this as well. Widmore's Others were waiting for Locke. Ethan was under Ben's regime, and Ben is not interested in the next leader coming.
But even more interesting is this. As I watched "Man Behind the Curtain" today, Richard had a very strange reaction to hearing that Locke was going to meet Jacob with Ben. He practically jumped out of his shoes. Now, if Locke had already met Alpert in '54 and told him that Jacob had sent him, why did he appear so surprised when Locke told him he was going to see Jacob?Because going to see Jacob is a big deal, whoever you are.
Really, to answer, I'd have to see it myself, and I don't have access to S3. Much like you won't trust someone's interpretation of a podcast, I can't trust someone's interpretation of a character's reaction, and this whole point is based how you say Richard reacted.

I hope you'll respond this time, since you seemingly missed my responses in the other thread.

Damon and Carlton are liars.

And I answered you, with your own words. To recap, he knew he was between the plane falling and Eko burning it. A few weeks' span. This is why Alpert couldn't just be waiting there, the other question you asked.

I gave an answer for this as well. Widmore's Others were waiting for Locke. Ethan was under Ben's regime, and Ben is not interested in the next leader coming.

Because going to see Jacob is a big deal, whoever you are.

I'm aware that you came up with some theories to answer my questions, but I wasn't answering you. And your theories, while perfectly valid, are hardly definitive. Some might even call them lacking credibility.

But feel free to pursue them. Just stop calling them fact.
100%
Damon and Carlton are liars.

I think that goes too far. The end of Damon's podcast statement that I quoted actually says..." we say refer to the Ms. Hawking scene in "Flashes Before Your Eyes". She gives a fairly good explanation of how everything works."

In my mind, everything means everything. In some people's mind, "everything" means "Desmond".

You choose.

The time travel rules are easy to figure out. It's Desmond's ability that is in question--otherwise, how it works for anyone else is understood....... we DO know how it works in the context of the show. We DON'T know Desmond's ability. We DO know how it works for everything else.

So, to repeat: Time travel is understood. Desmond's ability is not.
You're absolutely correct. To confirm, anyone can do a quick wiki search on TT, self-consistency theories, avoiding paradox in time travel, time loops etc. TPTB have been very consistently following the theories and finding of modern physics regarding TT.

A line was thrown out there by Dan about Des being special. We have yet to hear a definition of what "special" is. The only thing we saw was a TTing Dan speak to Des in the past and Desmond remembering the conversation in the present off the Island.
For all we know Des's ability to remember may be the only thing "special" thing about him



"So even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before....." Say what? But, but, but, whatever happened, happened! How, how, how could you do something in the past that you didn't do before???!?!?!?!? And here we have a real explanation of the "rules" in my opinion. If you go back in time, you can change what was done before, but the universe will course correct your actions in order bring things back in line..

You've got it! It will also prevent you from doing anything "uncorrectable" like autoinfanticide.

Well, death itself seems correctable on Lost. Locke's death was corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackers http://forum.thefuselage.com/images/FuselageGreen/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?p=2118268#post2118268)
Damon and Carlton are liars.

I think that goes too far. The end of Damon's podcast statement that I quoted actually says..." we say refer to the Ms. Hawking scene in "Flashes Before Your Eyes". She gives a fairly good explanation of how everything works."

In my mind, everything means everything. In some people's mind, "everything" means "Desmond".

You choose.

I seem to recall them saying there is no time travel in Lost. And then the thing with Desmond happened, and they're all, "Oh, there's only consciousness traveling in Lost." Ha! Personally, I don't feel, you know, betrayed or anything, but they have been deliberately misleading, if that is a kinder way to say it.

I seem to recall them saying there is no time travel in Lost. And then the thing with Desmond happened, and they're all, "Oh, there's only consciousness traveling in Lost." Ha! Personally, I don't feel, you know, betrayed or anything, but they have been deliberately misleading, if that is a kinder way to say it.


Heh heh, I don't feel betrayed. All it takes is 5 minutes watching their banter to deduce that they are super-duper sarcastic dudes! Just like me!

Where is the contradiction? Her past DIDN'T CHANGE. It just HAPPENED.

FROM CHARLOTTE'S POV:

She gets scared as a little girl
She remembers the previous event as she's about to die
She dies

FROM DAN'S POV:

Charlotte tells Dan that he's the scary man
Charlotte dies
Dan goes back in time and scares little Charlotte

There's nothing wrong with this.

Both great points and at the beginning of the day I was on the side that it could not of happened and now 12 hours later and many conversations I now believe either way is the same. It always happened and both ways you two laid out the script points towards that.

When Charlotte realized that Dan traveled back in time and warned her consciousness was traveling through time after Dan had traveled back so that memory might not have existed before then. As far as I know the science that allows time travel does so by explaining it by alternate dimensions being created at the divergence points. IE she moved from a reality where she didn't have that memory into one where her consciousness traveled back in time and experienced it. At least that's how I understood it.

Where is the contradiction? Her past DIDN'T CHANGE. It just HAPPENED.

FROM CHARLOTTE'S POV:

She gets scared as a little girl
She remembers the previous event as she's about to die
She dies

FROM DAN'S POV:

Charlotte tells Dan that he's the scary man
Charlotte dies
Dan goes back in time and scares little Charlotte

There's nothing wrong with this.
You're absolutely right, MagicActor. There's nothing contradictory about what you described above.

However, what IS contradictory is that this completely goes against how the series has been showing us that memory and time travel work on the show. Here is what they've shown before (I'll replicate your pattern to demonstrate it):

FROM DAN'S POV:
Daniel goes back in time and knocks on the Swan's outer door, and tells Desmond to go find his mum to help them out

FROM DESMOND'S POV:
At that point suddenly Desmond wakes up with this brand new old memory of Daniel doing this

Desmond then goes to LA to find Daniel's mum.


So, what they were showing was that a person would not have a memory of a time traveler meeting them in the past - until that person traveled back in time and did so.

But then Charlotte's memory of Dan totally contradicted that.

So, basically the writers are just doing whatever they want with the plotline, and there's really no attempt to try to be consistent.

I'm aware that you came up with some theories to answer my questions, but I wasn't answering you. And your theories, while perfectly valid, are hardly definitive. Some might even call them lacking credibility.

But feel free to pursue them. Just stop calling them fact.
I don't think I did call them fact. Nor do I think they're bulletproof. But lacking credibility? Please explain. I'm open to discussion.

When Charlotte realized that Dan traveled back in time and warned her consciousness was traveling through time after Dan had traveled back so that memory might not have existed before then. As far as I know the science that allows time travel does so by explaining it by alternate dimensions being created at the divergence points. IE she moved from a reality where she didn't have that memory into one where her consciousness traveled back in time and experienced it. At least that's how I understood it.

The way I'm understanding it, that's exactly what is not supposed to be going on. This would suggest a change that we're supposed to believe can't happen. That if Daniel told Charlotte as a child to leave, he always told her as a child to leave, not that there's an alternate to that. It's the whole street analogy. You can move back and forth on the street, but you can't change anything on the street.

But here is one podcast quote that I am familiar with. From 2/28/08...
"So even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before....." Say what? But, but, but, whatever happened, happened! How, how, how could you do something in the past that you didn't do before???!?!?!?!?
...
Daniel is a character in the show. A human character. Not an omniscient narrator. I treat his actions and dialogue accordingly.
You raise a very valid point, and my understanding of how it must work IS different from what Damon implied in his words that you quote. However, what I will point out is the -- the PURPOSE of Daniel's character is to explain and clarify the rules to the viewer, and TPTB put FAR, FAR more effort and attention to detail into the words of the script than they do their words in the podcast or interview responses. I'm not saying the latter should be ignored. However, Dan's repeated explanation that "whatever happened, happened," that "you can't change the past", that "time is like a street, you can go foreward on that street or you can go backward, but you can never make a second street," all contradict what is implied by "even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before."



However, what IS contradictory is that this completely goes against how the series has been showing us that memory and time travel work on the show. Here is what they've shown before (I'll replicate your pattern to demonstrate it):

FROM DAN'S POV:
Daniel goes back in time and knocks on the Swan's outer door, and tells Desmond to go find his mum to help them out

FROM DESMOND'S POV:
At that point suddenly Desmond wakes up with this brand new old memory of Daniel doing this

Desmond then goes to LA to find Daniel's mum.

So, what they were showing was that a person would not have a memory of a time traveler meeting them in the past - until that person traveled back in time and did so.
If that was what they were showing, Desmond would have woken up in 2005 with that memory. He did not. He woke up in 2007 or 2008 with that memory. It had no connection whatsoever with when Daniel was time traveling from, which was 2005.

How memory works (on the show as well as off) is that if something happens in 2004, you remember it in 2004, 2005, 2006, and so on. However, if you are Desmond, then occasionally, if something happens in 2004, you will wake up remembering it in 1996 (when he woke up in his army bunk in The Constant), and sometimes you will wake up remembering it in 2007 (waking in his boat bunk in Because You Left). As for anyone else, if they see a time traveler in 1954, they'll remember him in 1955 and so on; if they see a time traveler in 1988, they'll remember him in 1989 and so on.

The way I'm understanding it, that's exactly what is not supposed to be going on. This would suggest a change that we're supposed to believe can't happen. That if Daniel told Charlotte as a child to leave, he always told her as a child to leave, not that there's an alternate to that. It's the whole street analogy. You can move back and forth on the street, but you can't change anything on the street.

I think we are looking at this street to simplistic.

Daniel has knowledge of an event he takes part in which for him hasnt happened. He is now an observer of that event, meaning he can enact change by making a decision to act or not to act.

But by using what rules are given to us so far by TPTB. WIll his decision change the direction of the street? No. Will his decision create a new street? No. What will his decision not to act do then? Well according to what we know the Universe will ensure the outcome is still the same. Much like Demond trying to save Charlie, Daniel will eventually try to warn Charlotte. Remember she said " A crazy man.."

Seems clear Daniel will be quite out of his mind when he warns her. Maybe hes been working on a way to save her and realises he cant. Maybe the warning is a last ditch effort on his part out of pure grief.

I mean we can say yes thats how it always happened but the street analogy is not that simple...many things can happen on this street but these things wont create new streets, or change the streets direction...they are just events happening on it, change them all you want the street remains the same.

The way I understood it is that there can't be a version in which Daniel does not warn Charlotte, because that would result in two different timelines (streets), the one in which Charlotte is never warned, and the one in which she was warned. Just as there was never a version in which Sawyer never interfered with Amy.

Damon and Carlton are liars.

I seem to recall them saying there is no time travel in Lost. And then the thing with Desmond happened, and they're all, "Oh, there's only consciousness traveling in Lost." Ha! Personally, I don't feel, you know, betrayed or anything, but they have been deliberately misleading, if that is a kinder way to say it.
You have to be careful what you read in to their statements. I am a devoted listener of their podcasts, and I read all their interviews. They never said that there would never be any time travel on the show. They never said that there would never by any physical time travel on the show, when they were explaining why they were doing consciousness time travel. They rarely make definitive statements at all. But when they do, they are genuine.

There is only one thing that Damon and Carlton have flat-out lied about, but I don't see it as much as "lying" as trying to blur the lines between their fictional world and reality, which has been a source of a lot of fun for a lot of the fans. That "lie" is that Geronimo Jackson was a real band who released an obscure album in the 70's. Come on guys, if it was copyrighted, it would have been filed with the Library of Congress. You can't fool us with that one! :biggrin:

I could try and dig out the quotes, but it'd take me all day. I do remember that they weren't in podcast, but rather panel discussions, and yes, they were very misleading.

Daniel has knowledge of an event he takes part in which for him hasnt happened. He is now an observer of that event, meaning he can enact change by making a decision to act or not to act.
The time he acted that Charlotte is remembering, he also had that same knowledge of what he was going to do. ...because that time was this time. So I don't think that Daniel is going to warn Charlotte because of Course Correction; he's going to warn her just because it is what he is going to choose to do.

The time he acted that Charlotte is remembering, he also had that same knowledge of what he was going to do. ...because that time was this time. So I don't think that Daniel is going to warn Charlotte because of Course Correction; he's going to warn her just because it is what he is going to choose to do.

yup. In the end thats gonna be his decision, and not BC he has to do it for any reason.

Lindelof said that a DVD set of the first season will come out this summer, before a second season begins in the fall. As the show progresses, he added, it won't venture too far into science fiction as its mysteries unfold. "We're still trying to be ... firmly ensconced in the world of science fact," he said in an interview. "I don't think we've shown anything on the show yet ... that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and ... things being in a place where they probably shouldn't be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn't any time travel."
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/handheld/30246.html

I could try and dig out the quotes, but it'd take me all day. I do remember that they weren't in podcast, but rather panel discussions, and yes, they were very misleading.
I remember a panel discussion where they were explaining why they chose to do consciousness time travel. I don't remember exactly what they said, but yes, one would definitely get the impression that consciousness time travel was the only kind there would be. They were obviously careful not to give away that there might be other kinds, but they didn't lie and flat out say there wouldn't be other kinds.

I'm not the one who called them liars, I said they were deliberately misleading, and they were.

"We're still trying to be ... firmly ensconced in the world of science fact. I don't think we've shown anything on the show yet ... that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and ... things being in a place where they probably shouldn't be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn't any time travel."
Are you saying that's a lie? There was nothing in season one that would have to be interpreted as time travel. They never said "there will never be time travel on the show."

They've said that about many things, but not time travel. They've said there will never be nanobots. There will never be clones. There will never be temporal paradox (that one is a bit more subjective than the others). There will not be an ending to the show where it's all a dream or hallucination.

The time he acted that Charlotte is remembering, he also had that same knowledge of what he was going to do. ...because that time was this time. So I don't think that Daniel is going to warn Charlotte because of Course Correction; he's going to warn her just because it is what he is going to choose to do.

I agree, I mean so far that is what we are shown and Charlotte did say a crazy man so Im guessing after 3 years trying to work it all out and getting nowhere he will just resort to warning her by screaming at her not to return.

But for every idea, every concept one can come up with it is easily debunked by whatever happens, happened. And if that doesnt work its course correction.

So therein lies the dilemma of anyone wanting to affect change to say save mankind for example. The rules imply they cant if its meant to happen it will happen...

I understand the concept, Im hoping for a different one. The concept of free will becomes null and void in the Lost universe, for me thats just a tad lame.

Are you saying that's a lie? There was nothing in season one that would have to be interpreted as time travel. They never said "there will never be time travel on the show."

They've said that about many things, but not time travel. They've said there will never be nanobots. There will never be clones. There will never be temporal paradox (that one is a bit more subjective than the others). There will not be an ending to the show where it's all a dream or hallucination.

I said it was misleading, and it is. I think we should get ready for alien spaceships now.

You raise a very valid point, and my understanding of how it must work IS different from what Damon implied in his words that you quote. However, what I will point out is the -- the PURPOSE of Daniel's character is to explain and clarify the rules to the viewer, and TPTB put FAR, FAR more effort and attention to detail into the words of the script than they do their words in the podcast or interview responses. I'm not saying the latter should be ignored. However, Dan's repeated explanation that "whatever happened, happened," that "you can't change the past", that "time is like a street, you can go foreward on that street or you can go backward, but you can never make a second street," all contradict what is implied by "even if you did something in the past that you didn't do before."



If that was what they were showing, Desmond would have woken up in 2005 with that memory. He did not. He woke up in 2007 or 2008 with that memory. It had no connection whatsoever with when Daniel was time traveling from, which was 2005.

How memory works (on the show as well as off) is that if something happens in 2004, you remember it in 2004, 2005, 2006, and so on. However, if you are Desmond, then occasionally, if something happens in 2004, you will wake up remembering it in 1996 (when he woke up in his army bunk in The Constant), and sometimes you will wake up remembering it in 2007 (waking in his boat bunk in Because You Left). As for anyone else, if they see a time traveler in 1954, they'll remember him in 1955 and so on; if they see a time traveler in 1988, they'll remember him in 1989 and so on.
It's not contradictory. It's *possible* to change events and invoke course correction, but it's not the norm.

The first time we saw time travel was in "Flashes Before Your Eyes" -- not consciousness traveling, BTW. That's when we learned about course correction. Later, we learned that while Desmond has been able to change the past (and future), he is unique in this ability.

The course correction still is valid; but only Desmond is able to make use of it.

Desmond first time traveled in the third season, but it's not until season four that we see the scientific explanation for it. So this is a chicken-or-the-egg type question: Did you learn about the science first, then work it into the show? Or do you think of a plot element and then research different scientific theories that back it up?
DL: This is where, while Carlton has a much more practical background in science and engineering, I have a long and storied history in every single time travel story that's ever been written, and draw upon that to fundamentally provide our stories with what we want to do. In this case, we said the way that we want to do time travel on Lost is consciousness based, as opposed to somebody gets in a DeLorean or a HG Wells-like apparatus and zaps themself back in time where they can interact with an earlier version of themself. It's more interesting if your brain basically drops into your body at different points in your life, which is more consistent with the sort of Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5, paradigm, and also helps insulate you from paradox. So we decided to do that with Desmond. He felt like the logical person to do it with. We find an emotional core for the story—in his case, it's his desire to be reunited with Penny—so we tell time travel stories that sort of focus on the romantic element, which is why we think Peggy Sue in Back to the Future and Somewhere in Time all work. They're science-fiction stories, but they have an emotional core. And we go from there. And then we do the research.http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4260693.html?series=6

Misleading. Lying? Either way, what happened in Season 5 is what they said wouldn't happen in Season 4. Unless Locke could not have bumped into himself at the hatch, and Sawyer could not have run to the jungle to find himself while Claire gave birth. They conveniently had them skipping so frequently that it was unlikely it would happen, but was it impossible? Either way, I know better than to take them at their word in terms of theorizing, and that is the crux of it for me. What can I theorize on based on what they are telling me?

I find it funny reading through some of these TT discussions - some people seem to be talking as if it were a question of knowledge. TT is still purely theoretical - NO-ONE knows what the "rules" might be, if there were any. But more important than that point is the fact that Lost is a work of fiction - even if TT did exist, they can create their own rules.

So why not just focus on what we've been told :
"Whatever happened, happened"
Here's the catch. Much as they said about death over and over - "If you die on the Island you stay dead", many of us picked up on the get-out clause "on the Island". And what do you know, Locke dies off the Island and is now alive again. Well now they're saying that nothing will be changed, anything we've seen will happen as we've seen it, the future we saw for Kate and Jack, for example, is unavoidable. Note, "anything we've seen". We never saw the scene between young Charlotte and Faraday, and so it can be changed. How? Well, we've also been told Desmond is unique. Some have commented that that point has been thrown in too quickly - I knew he TTed from the scene in the stadium. The whole Powers thing is just getting started, folks.
What else have Darlton given us? Faraday saying "he won't do it". And another snippet. Every time they say that nothing can be changed they add at the end "but do the Losties believe this to be the case", or words to that effect. Every time. Why? Well, my theory is that "belief" is the key to them using their abilities. If Faraday truly believes he can save Charlotte he will. But that's impossible, right? That would be a miracle. Well, as Desmond went back and told Jack after his little belief-based miracle : "Oh, and you don't believe in miracles?"

As for Darlton bending the truth. They have admitted that they didn't go full-on Sci-Fi at the beginning so as not to alienate the audience. They described the show at that early stage as not having Sci-Fi, aliens, etc. Which, at that early stage, was entirely true. Since then they've been very open and said that the best word to describe the content is pseudo-science.

The first time we saw time travel was in "Flashes Before Your Eyes" -- not consciousness traveling, BTW. That's when we learned about course correction. Later, we learned that while Desmond has been able to change the past (and future), he is unique in this ability.


In the same episode,we also see Donovan, Desmonds Physicist friend and as he walked out he was involved in a conversation where he is explaing to a student...

"Your thesis is a bit neat. The wild card part which is unpredictability -- run the same test 10 times -- you'll achieve 10 different outcomes. It's what makes life so wonderfully chaotic."

He then says...

"Case in point, who could have known that a drenched Scotsman would appear in this rotunda?"

Red Herring or hint? In the same show Eloise ensures Desmond gives the ring back and explains in detail the events that happened when he originally walked into that store and that he must adhere to those events. So how does that fit into everything happens only once idea?

1) Desmond walked into the Jewelery store, has doubt and leaves without buying the ring.

2) Desmond B walks into the store and is going to buy the ring, has a big ole conversation with Eloise and leaves without buying the ring.

Whatever happened, happened! Why is this so confusing for people to get?


Whenever someone is confused, they should repeat this in their head until they understand. As long as the writers don't screw up and create a paradox, this explains time travel perfectly in 3 words.

Whenever someone is confused, they should repeat this in their head until they understand. As long as the writers don't screw up and create a paradox, this explains time travel perfectly in 3 words.

True enough! It's surprisingly concise for such a simple comment, isnt it?

I'm not one of those that fully understand all this theoretical physics stuff, but thanks to several posters here on the 'Lage, particularly Pythagoras for putting it in clear and understandable terms, I've learned a thing or two. Perhaps a good reminder for all of us in understanding all this crazy stuff is the perception that.... The past, the present and the future are all happening at the same time, as propsed by..., you tell me. ha. For me, that really simplifies things when trying to determine causality for some of the events we witness of Lost.

My doubt is when did this Daniel talking to little Charlotte happened.
Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979. The lefties are back in 1974, they show Daniel seeing this little red haired girl but, if Ben got his info right, Charlotte wasn't born yet...was that a continuity error or something intentional?
(maybe they changed her birth date after she left the island being a girl? if so, why?)

My doubt is when did this Daniel talking to little Charlotte happened.
Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979. The lefties are back in 1974, they show Daniel seeing this little red haired girl but, if Ben got his info right, Charlotte wasn't born yet...was that a continuity error or something intentional?
(maybe they changed her birth date after she left the island being a girl? if so, why?)

Ben lies. You can never take anything he says as gospel. If Ben's word is the only source for anything, you're better off assuming the opposite is true, if truth is what you're after.

As for anyone else, if they see a time traveler in 1954, they'll remember him in 1955 and so on; if they see a time traveler in 1988, they'll remember him in 1989 and so on.
I've read that it is very common in sci-fi stories for TT to have no previous memories of creating the loop that now leads to the past. For example Locke, Sawyer, Juliet etc. had no memory of being in 1954 before the flashes. But the rules tell us that once they TTed back to that year, they always have.....The twist usually occurs in one character whose memory surfaces via deja vu or a dream...kind of like Desmond.
The way I understood it is that there can't be a version in which Daniel does not warn Charlotte, because that would result in two different timelines (streets), the one in which Charlotte is never warned, and the one in which she was warned. Just as there was never a version in which Sawyer never interfered with Amy.
That"s correct. Because once once a TTer leaves their present time they automatically create a loop or circle. Which events follow which other are now indistinguishable. Everything in the circle has always happened.

- NO-ONE knows what the "rules" might be, if there were any. But more important than that point is the fact that Lost is a work of fiction - even if TT did exist, they can create their own rules.They definately could create their own rules, but so far they haven't. So far everything that has been "explained" is taken directly from physicists who have taken the hypothetical of TT and applied the real laws of physics to it's possibilities. Real physicist like Einstien, Newton, Thorne, Novikov, Hawking etc.

I think when people post what they call "fact", they may be referring to the actual physics studied within the area of TT.

If we forget the loops then it might make more sense.

Follow me on this...

Day 1. I wake up, go to work, come home and go to sleep.
Day 2. Same as day 1.
Day 3. I wake up and I am transported to last week where I get to ask out a pretty girl for lunch. We enjoy lunch. On my way back to the office, I am transported back to the afternoon of Day 3 as if nothing happened. Only, now I have the memory of having had lunch with the pretty girl. But, I discover that the pretty girl doesn't remember our lunch.
Day 4 is the same as Day 1 and I never time travel again.

So when did the lunch really happen? In a "loop view" of time, it happened last week. But, you could also say that it happen on Day 3.

When someone says, "Whatever happened, happened." what are they referring to? To the event that happened last week, or to the fact that I time traveled and had lunch with the pretty girl in the past on Day 3?

I'm leaning towards the latter. I time traveled on Day 3 and whatever happened, happened. Even if the pretty girl doesn't remember.

Comments?

"Whatever happened, happened."

Except when you are Desmond, except when...

They just make exceptions as it is needed.

When someone says, "Whatever happened, happened." what are they referring to? To the event that happened last week, or to the fact that I time traveled and had lunch with the pretty girl in the past on Day 3?

I see what you're saying. Did it happen last week or did it happen on Day 3 when you TT'ed to the past?

Physic would explain it as such:
-You are living life on a straight time line. Without TT you will continue to do so.
-Once you jump back, that jump looks like an arc on your timeline. The arc
connects Day 3 with last week. This is your loop/circle/ Closed Time
Curve...whatever you want to call it.

It's not so much a theory...more of what physically happens to your time line when you "jump back." Look at your timeline. Your "jump" formed an arc. This is the "loop" that was formed between Day 3 and last week.

That "loop" was not there before you TTed on Day 3, but now that it is ....it is impossible to distinguish which point came first. It becomes a true "chicken or the egg" event:

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!

"Whatever happened, happened."

Except when you are Desmond, except when...

They just make exceptions as it is needed.
No, they've been very consistent. It's just "Except when you are Desmond". As far as we've seen, the only apparent exceptions to "whatever happened, happened" have involved Desmond.

Desmond's form of traveling is different too, and maybe this is why he's exempt. He never physically time traveled in the same way that the skippers did. Desmond has consciousness traveled. I don't know why that makes his rules different, but apparently it does.

I see what you're saying. Did it happen last week or did it happen on Day 3 when you TT'ed to the past?

Physic would explain it as such:
-You are living life on a straight time line. Without TT you will continue to do so.
-Once you jump back, that jump looks like an arc on your timeline. The arc
connects Day 3 with last week. This is your loop/circle/ Closed Time
Curve...whatever you want to call it.

It's not so much a theory...more of what physically happens to your time line when you "jump back." Look at your timeline. Your "jump" formed an arc. This is the "loop" that was formed between Day 3 and last week.

That "loop" was not there before you TTed on Day 3, but now that it is ....it is impossible to distinguish which point came first. It becomes a true "chicken or the egg" event:

You know, leaving Desmond aside, it does make more sense to me now. I tend to think of time travel on Lost to be a straight line.

Just as a story element, I am beginning to accept it. But, Desmond is another thing. Let's hope we learn why he is the exception. It would be rather lame to leave that out of the story.

Another interesting aspect of the show that has not been shown is how the flashes and the time traveling is affecting the other Left-Behinders such as Rose, Bernard and of course Vincent. Without anyone like Daniel to explain what is happening, I imagine things would be rather confusing.

I also noticed that those three were missing from this episode. You can't just leave them out and expect the fans not to question their where abouts.

Rose and Bernard in Dharma outfits would be so cool to see. Of course, Vincent would have his own Dharma dog collar.

I get the whole what happend happend thing.

Sawyer is in 1974 a dharma guy falls off a cliff in 1974. Even if Sawyer knows this and trys to stop it the guy will fall off the cliff anyway. Maybe in a different day or a different week, but it's going to happen.

That much I get.

What I do not get is this. If Sawyer prolongs the mans death, then everything that man does extra before he dies changes the future in some way. Might be a small way, but it changes it.

Like Desmond and Charile. Charlie was going to die and Desmond stopped it mulitable times. Which left Charlie alive long enough to swim down in to the hatch and just his being there would have changed how events played out. Which would change the future?

Now if Daniel chooses not to talk to Charlote as a child that is going to change something. Going on the theory that Daniel has free will and can choose not to say anything to her.
Now course correction could cause something else to scare her. I guess it could cause someone else to say something to her, but even that has to change how things play out in the future.

I just don't understand how everything is written in stone. The smallest act in the past can change huge things in the future.

No, they've been very consistent. It's just "Except when you are Desmond". As far as we've seen, the only apparent exceptions to "whatever happened, happened" have involved Desmond.


Desmond changed everything by prolonging Charlie's life. None of the events in season 4 or 5 would have happened if he had not done that.

I've read that it is very common in sci-fi stories for TT to have no previous memories of creating the loop that now leads to the past. For example Locke, Sawyer, Juliet etc. had no memory of being in 1954 before the flashes. But the rules tell us that once they TTed back to that year, they always have.....The twist usually occurs in one character whose memory surfaces via deja vu or a dream...kind of like Desmond.


Well, you can't have memories of something that hasn't happened to you yet.



Follow me on this...

Day 1. I wake up, go to work, come home and go to sleep.
Day 2. Same as day 1.
Day 3. I wake up and I am transported to last week where I get to ask out a pretty girl for lunch. We enjoy lunch. On my way back to the office, I am transported back to the afternoon of Day 3 as if nothing happened. Only, now I have the memory of having had lunch with the pretty girl. But, I discover that the pretty girl doesn't remember our lunch.
Day 4 is the same as Day 1 and I never time travel again.

So when did the lunch really happen? In a "loop view" of time, it happened last week. But, you could also say that it happen on Day 3.

When someone says, "Whatever happened, happened." what are they referring to? To the event that happened last week, or to the fact that I time traveled and had lunch with the pretty girl in the past on Day 3?

I'm leaning towards the latter. I time traveled on Day 3 and whatever happened, happened. Even if the pretty girl doesn't remember.

Comments?


The problem here is that you're essentially saying that, when you time travel, your body merges with the past body, which isn't what's going on. You would have had lunch with the girl on Day 3, but there would be another you out there that didn't travel back in time, yet. Once your "past self" has time traveled back, you will be the only you. The girl WOULD remember, unless she got amnesia or something.



I get the whole what happend happend thing.

Sawyer is in 1974 a dharma guy falls off a cliff in 1974. Even if Sawyer knows this and trys to stop it the guy will fall off the cliff anyway. Maybe in a different day or a different week, but it's going to happen.

That much I get.

What I do not get is this. If Sawyer prolongs the mans death, then everything that man does extra before he dies changes the future in some way. Might be a small way, but it changes it.


Almost. The man would always fall off the cliff at the same time and in the same way. Every "time" the man fell, Saywer tried, but failed. Now, if Sawyer were Desmond. . . .


Like Desmond and Charile. Charlie was going to die and Desmond stopped it mulitable times. Which left Charlie alive long enough to swim down in to the hatch and just his being there would have changed how events played out. Which would change the future?


This is why I think the Oceanic Six "weren't supposed to leave." Desmond interfered. I believe that the freighter people would have come to the island and Ben would still have turned the wheel. But now, thanks to Desmond, people left (due to the little chat with Penny that should never have occurred).


Now if Daniel chooses not to talk to Charlote as a child that is going to change something. Going on the theory that Daniel has free will and can choose not to say anything to her.

Now course correction could cause something else to scare her. I guess it could cause someone else to say something to her, but even that has to change how things play out in the future.

I just don't understand how everything is written in stone. The smallest act in the past can change huge things in the future.


Daniel does have free will. He has the choice. We just happen to already know what he will choose to do.

These are rules that Daniel set up and I think he is wrong. If whatever happened, happened why was Penny not on the island or the freighter as Desmond's charlie death dreams predicted? Yes Charlie died anyway but half of Desmond's dream about that did not come true anyway so how much of his dreams can you take seriously? I think if anything, Desmond was seeing alternate time lines rather then what was to happen on his current timeline.

I think that Sawyer and Co. saving Amy changed a whole lot and Amy was supposed to die and her child never born. That is why their child is special as he only exists on certain timelines not all.

Just my thoughts..

This is why I think the Oceanic Six "weren't supposed to leave." Desmond interfered. I believe that the freighter people would have come to the island and Ben would still have turned the wheel.


What supporting evidence do you have for this belief that the freighter people would have still came to the island and Ben still would have turned the wheel?

What supporting evidence do you have for this belief that the freighter people would have still came to the island and Ben still would have turned the wheel?

The freighter people's mission was to get on the island, get Ben, and kill everyone else. They weren't just going to stay in the water. Ben turned the wheel because of their presence.
100%
These are rules that Daniel set up and I think he is wrong. If whatever happened, happened why was Penny not on the island or the freighter as Desmond's charlie death dreams predicted? Yes Charlie died anyway but half of Desmond's dream about that did not come true anyway so how much of his dreams can you take seriously? I think if anything, Desmond was seeing alternate time lines rather then what was to happen on his current timeline.

Keep in mind that Desmond is exempt from the rules.

Ben turned the wheel because of their presence.



...on the island. They made it there because Charlie turned off the jammer. Charlie turned off the jammer because Desmond changed his future.

MagicfActor1987

So what your saying is unlike Desmond, Sawyer never would have been able to prolong the mans death. The man would have fallen at the same time no matter what Sawyer did?

...on the island. They made it there because Charlie turned off the jammer. Charlie turned off the jammer because Desmond changed his future.

They were already there. They knew where it was. The jammer-undoing just let Naomi make contact. Again, the freighter people weren't just going to go "Oh, shoot. I know the island's somewhere in this eight miles. Oh well, let's go home."

What DID happen when Charlie unjammed things, though, was contact with Penny.

MagicfActor1987

So what your saying is unlike Desmond, Sawyer never would have been able to prolong the mans death. The man would have fallen at the same time no matter what Sawyer did?

Right.

They were already there. They knew where it was. The jammer-undoing just let Naomi make contact.


They didn't know where the island was, and neither did Naomi. She found the island accidentally while doing her grid search.

They knew the general area. I find it hard to believe that Naomi's the only one that would have been able to do a search.

They knew the general area. I find it hard to believe that Naomi's the only one that would have been able to do a search.


Of course Frank could have done a search after Naomi disappeared. That doesn't mean he would have found anything.

Desmond changed everything by prolonging Charlie's life. None of the events in season 4 or 5 would have happened if he had not done that.

I think Desmond changed everything by turning the failsafe key. It was at this point that he goes back in time to England, changes events with the bartender at the pub, and returns to the island seeing flashes of the future.

Desmond's last words before turning the key were "See you in another life, John."

Another life (timeline), indeed.

Here are a few more questions...

How can there be two versions of the same person at the same time? Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places, or even the same general place?

When Locke and the others saw the beam of light a few episodes ago, there was a “duplicate” Locke (from S1) banging on the hatch. When Sawyer saw Kate helping Claire deliver Aaron, there was a “duplicate” Sawyer on the beach (from S1 when he gave all the medicine to Kate for Boone before she ran into Claire). When they all jumped back to 1974/1977 in this episode, they were all doing something else at that time, too. In the “original” timeline, Juliet and Sawyer were both about 7 in 1977. Sawyer/James was probably in Jasper, Alabama then- probably around the time his father killed his mother and then himself. How could the young James be in Jasper, AL and the Sawyer in this episode be on the Island at the same time? The only way any of it possibly makes sense is there would have to be two versions of yourself and that leads me back to my original question: Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo, that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places or even the same general place?

Also, on the whole “whatever happened, happened” and Daniel’s claim that “time is like a street that you can go backward or forward on, but you can’t create a different street,” etc., how do they explain the series of events outlined below?

Juliet and Sawyer kill two Others that killed Paul and were apparently about to abduct Amy; Horace and Amy and hook up; Amy gets pregnant; and Juliet helps deliver Amy’s baby- and if she didn’t, Amy and the baby both would have died (most likely). How is that not changing what happened? What if Locke took an extra few seconds to fix the FDW? Maybe they get to the exact spot, but an hour later- or in 1970 instead 1974? The fact that they arrived to that specific moment in time most certainly set off that chain of events and without Juliet and Sawyer saving Amy, she never would have had that baby.

This would all have more credibility if we were somehow looking at the “LOST world” through the eyes of one character, like George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, or the main character from Jacob’s Ladder- if somehow, it was just in one character’s mind (perhaps, Hurley??). But this would fall into the “snow globe” category that they have said repeatedly the show is most certainly not. The TT also can’t just be in the mind (like Daniel’s rat) because we have seen numerous physical things travel in time (Richard / Locke’s compass; the gun Sawyer got from young Widmore, etc.). Not to mention, if it were just in the mind, how would they explain all of the characters moving around in time to the same time periods, together, every time?

I hope someone can answer these questions.

I think Desmond changed everything by turning the failsafe key. It was at this point that he goes back in time to England, changes events with the bartender at the pub, and returns to the island seeing flashes of the future.

Desmond's last words before turning the key were "See you in another life, John."

Another life (timeline), indeed.


Good point.

Here are a few more questions...

How can there be two versions of the same person at the same time? Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places, or even the same general place?

When Locke and the others saw the beam of light a few episodes ago, there was a “duplicate” Locke (from S1) banging on the hatch. When Sawyer saw Kate helping Claire deliver Aaron, there was a “duplicate” Sawyer on the beach (from S1 when he gave all the medicine to Kate for Boone before she ran into Claire). When they all jumped back to 1974/1977 in this episode, they were all doing something else at that time, too. In the “original” timeline, Juliet and Sawyer were both about 7 in 1977. Sawyer/James was probably in Jasper, Alabama then- probably around the time his father killed his mother and then himself. How could the young James be in Jasper, AL and the Sawyer in this episode be on the Island at the same time? The only way any of it possibly makes sense is there would have to be two versions of yourself and that leads me back to my original question: Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo, that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places or even the same general place?

Also, on the whole “whatever happened, happened” and Daniel’s claim that “time is like a street that you can go backward or forward on, but you can’t create a different street,” etc., how do they explain the series of events outlined below?

Juliet and Sawyer kill two Others that killed Paul and were apparently about to abduct Amy; Horace and Amy and hook up; Amy gets pregnant; and Juliet helps deliver Amy’s baby- and if she didn’t, Amy and the baby both would have died (most likely). How is that not changing what happened? What if Locke took an extra few seconds to fix the FDW? Maybe they get to the exact spot, but an hour later- or in 1970 instead 1974? The fact that they arrived to that specific moment in time most certainly set off that chain of events and without Juliet and Sawyer saving Amy, she never would have had that baby.

This would all have more credibility if we were somehow looking at the “LOST world” through the eyes of one character, like George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, or the main character from Jacob’s Ladder- if somehow, it was just in one character’s mind (perhaps, Hurley??). But this would fall into the “snow globe” category that they have said repeatedly the show is most certainly not. The TT also can’t just be in the mind (like Daniel’s rat) because we have seen numerous physical things travel in time (Richard / Locke’s compass; the gun Sawyer got from young Widmore, etc.). Not to mention, if it were just in the mind, how would they explain all of the characters moving around in time to the same time periods, together, every time?

I hope someone can answer these questions.

The way I've been looking at it is like this...
The island has a limitless source of energy beneath it that can manipulate time. The show can become confusing when you change perspectives. You say that Sawyer and Juliet killing the 2 Others changed something. I disagree. Let's look at Amy's perspective. She was having a picnic with her husband, Paul when the Others show up. They are killed from unknown people who came from the future. In the one and only time line they always appeared from the future because the island (which is an insanely special place with unique properties) pulled them out of their own time and put them their. Amy never lived through this event without them showing up. It happened once and one time only. I subscribe to the single time line theory. I also understand that with any other theory that I've subscribed to over the years, I could turn out to be wrong. But for now I'm sticking with it and try to explain things with it. If their are multiple time lines in play, Lost could go the way of Heroes and get insanely hard to follow and slip into utter chaos. With the single time line theory, it keeps everything tight and easy to follow, for me anyway :)

Whatever Sawyer is currently doing in 1977 has already been done in 2004. He is just experiencing it from his perspective and fulfilling his own destiny. As he lives through this experience in the 1970's he has complete free will to do anything he wants. As anyone who is in 2004 is concerned, it's already happened and can't be changed.

I'm not saying I'm right and it's infallible. I'm just saying it makes sense to me and I'm going with it until Jacob gives me an on screen narrative that says otherwise :)

Whatever Sawyer is currently doing in 1977 has already been done in 2004. He is just experiencing it from his perspective and fulfilling his own destiny. As he lives through this experience in the 1970's he has complete free will to do anything he wants. As anyone who is in 2004 is concerned, it's already happened and can't be changed.

I agree. He can't mess anything up because anything he does in his now (1977) has already had a result. The one thing I believe he can't do is something like kill little Charlotte. She'd have to be impervious to that since we know when she died. In that case, I imagine it would be much like Michael trying to kill himself and unable to succeed. There would be no paradox because it simply wouldn't happen. The gun wouldn't fire, the cricket bat would land on another's head, etc.

How can there be two versions of the same person at the same time? Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places, or even the same general place?


Because they're the same people from different times. . .there's no contradiction of idea, here. If you go back in time, there are two of you--you don't "merge" with your "past self."

If you traveled backward in time by five minutes, then for five minutes, there would be two people. After that five minutes, the "past self" would jump backward in time, leaving one person.


Juliet and Sawyer kill two Others that killed Paul and were apparently about to abduct Amy; Horace and Amy and hook up; Amy gets pregnant; and Juliet helps deliver Amy’s baby- and if she didn’t, Amy and the baby both would have died (most likely). How is that not changing what happened? What if Locke took an extra few seconds to fix the FDW? Maybe they get to the exact spot, but an hour later- or in 1970 instead 1974? The fact that they arrived to that specific moment in time most certainly set off that chain of events and without Juliet and Sawyer saving Amy, she never would have had that baby.


It's not changing what happened because nothing else ever happened. To Amy, Sawyer showed up at that point in her life, and there was never a time when this event didn't occur the same way. There's no change because, from the perspective of, say, 2007, Sawyer's deed was already built into history.

Imagine if Sawyer found a book called "The History of the Dharma Initiative and Every Last Person Ever Involved in it on this Weird Island" in 2004. If he read it, he would have read about a Mr. James LaFleur saving Amy's life. Then, in the future, he would go back in time to discover that he was LaFleur this whole time--it's not changing anything by going into the past, it's completing it, if you will.

"See you in another life, brutha" -Desmond. He means it.. you may not see him in another life, but he'll certainly see you, because it's his other life. :cool:

We enjoy lunch. On my way back to the office, I am transported back to the afternoon of Day 3 as if nothing happened. Only, now I have the memory of having had lunch with the pretty girl. But, I discover that the pretty girl doesn't remember our lunch

No. What happens, is that she's miffed that you don't remember the lunch when you encounter her between it and Day3.

HerDay1 : That was a great lunch last week.
YouDay1(not yet TT): What are you going on about ? I did not have lunch with you !!

Of course on Day 3, you TT and figure it all out. Now, do you try and explain it to her at lunch. And if so, when she explains it to you in the days leading up to Day3, you think she's nuts!!

HerDay1: No really ! You said you were TTing !!
YouDay1: What a fruitcake (but she's cute...)

So, on Day3, when you TT, you decide to have a really nice lunch, explaining as best you can. With any luck, you'll get together on Day4 and have a great laugh about the whole thing. Of course at a place you know YouDayofLunchDate didn't go.

In my attempt to explain this TT model, there's YouTime which runs sequentially - imagine it as YouDay1, YouDay2, YouDay3, YouDay4. Then there's SpaceTimeTime which I'll call STDay1, STDay2, etcetera. Each of these iterations happens ONLY ONCE and is NOT REPEATED. ONLY ONE YouDay1and ONLY ONE STDay1, got it ?

If you TT for the first time as YouDay3, you could go to any STDay, even STDay-1000. But YouDay1 would have no knowledge of it at all. It doesn't happen until YouDay3. So anyone who tried and explain their encounter with YouDay200 would seem quite loopy.

Desmond changed everything by prolonging Charlie's life. None of the events in season 4 or 5 would have happened if he had not done that.

That's totally false. Just because things happened one way, doesn't mean that they couldn't have happened another way. There are many roads leading to the same destination.

Here are a few more questions...

How can there be two versions of the same person at the same time? Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places, or even the same general place?

When Locke and the others saw the beam of light a few episodes ago, there was a “duplicate” Locke (from S1) banging on the hatch. When Sawyer saw Kate helping Claire deliver Aaron, there was a “duplicate” Sawyer on the beach (from S1 when he gave all the medicine to Kate for Boone before she ran into Claire). When they all jumped back to 1974/1977 in this episode, they were all doing something else at that time, too. In the “original” timeline, Juliet and Sawyer were both about 7 in 1977. Sawyer/James was probably in Jasper, Alabama then- probably around the time his father killed his mother and then himself. How could the young James be in Jasper, AL and the Sawyer in this episode be on the Island at the same time? The only way any of it possibly makes sense is there would have to be two versions of yourself and that leads me back to my original question: Since humans are actual beings comprised of matter and not two-dimensional objects (like a photo, that can be easily copied), how can two versions exist at the same time in two different places or even the same general place?
You've got that all right, but you're not thinking fourth dimensionally. The matter that is that person was not created nor destroyed. It was just moved from one time to another. For time to work the way Lost has it working, all time has to exist simultaneously.

Also, on the whole “whatever happened, happened” and Daniel’s claim that “time is like a street that you can go backward or forward on, but you can’t create a different street,” etc., how do they explain the series of events outlined below?

Juliet and Sawyer kill two Others that killed Paul and were apparently about to abduct Amy; Horace and Amy and hook up; Amy gets pregnant; and Juliet helps deliver Amy’s baby- and if she didn’t, Amy and the baby both would have died (most likely). How is that not changing what happened? What if Locke took an extra few seconds to fix the FDW? Maybe they get to the exact spot, but an hour later- or in 1970 instead 1974? The fact that they arrived to that specific moment in time most certainly set off that chain of events and without Juliet and Sawyer saving Amy, she never would have had that baby.
Because that's how it always happened. If you were observing all of space as time progressing normally, you would see Juliet, Sawyer, Miles, and Daniel pop into existence in 1974 and do those things. "Where'd those guys come from?", you'd think. Then you'd get to 2005 and see them vanish. "Oh, that's where they came from." All those alternate possibilities are just that -- possibilities. But they didn't happen.

If that was what they were showing, Desmond would have woken up in 2005 with that memory. He did not. He woke up in 2007 or 2008 with that memory. It had no connection whatsoever with when Daniel was time traveling from, which was 2005.

How memory works (on the show as well as off) is that if something happens in 2004, you remember it in 2004, 2005, 2006, and so on. However, if you are Desmond, then occasionally, if something happens in 2004, you will wake up remembering it in 1996 (when he woke up in his army bunk in The Constant), and sometimes you will wake up remembering it in 2007 (waking in his boat bunk in Because You Left). As for anyone else, if they see a time traveler in 1954, they'll remember him in 1955 and so on; if they see a time traveler in 1988, they'll remember him in 1989 and so on.

I think this is correct. Desmond appears to be capable of remembering both the past and the future. And, my hypothesis, is that just like someone's memory of past events isn't always 100% accurate, Desmond's memory of future events is not always 100% accurate. EDIT: I saw "Watchmen" the other night, and someone asserted that the Graphic Novel was an influence on Lost. Without ruining the movie, or going to far into crossover-land, I think Desmond is extraordinarily similar in circumstance to Dr. Manhattan (and Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five). All humans can remember the past, but with an increasing degree of uncertainty as you move further away from your current position in time. I think Desmond has that ability for the future as well. So the further away from the event horizon (i.e., the present) he is, the less accurate the vision/memory. I don't believe Desmond (or Dr. Manhattan) believes you can change anything.

I also think Darlton aren't 100% accurate. I think I remember a podcast where they said something like once you die in Lost, you stay dead...Christian Shephard is dead. EDIT: A previous post said they added a qualifier of "dying on island" like Nikki or Boone. I can accept that.

I also think Darlton aren't 100% accurate. I think I remember a podcast where they said something like once you die in Lost, you stay dead...Christian Shephard is dead. EDIT: A previous post said they added a qualifier of "dying on island" like Nikki or Boone. I can accept that.

Totally off-topic... I'm starting to believe that if you die on the Island, you can appear outside of the Island, and if you die outside the Island (and are brought there?), you can appear on the Island.

Hurley seems to be more in tune with spirits on the outside that are from the Island, and being on the Island itself can bring you in tune with the spirits from the outside that are brought to it.
100%
And before you say it, this would put things like Locke's visions of Boone and Jack's fleeting vision of his father in the hospital from S4 into the category of hallucinations and/or "dreams", brought on by guilty consciences and regrets.

It would probably also mean that Claire is dead, unless that was also a guilt based hallucination. o_o;

if she didn’t, Amy and the baby both would have died (most likely). How is that not changing what happened?

But she did, so what could have happened, never happened. Until we are shown some 'original' version that differs - not just forum speculation on what was 'changed' - the 'What happened..' rule seems to cover all non-Des TT we've seen.

There seems to be a real confusion between what "could have happened" without the TTers intervention, and "what did/should have happened". To use the above example, I have been shown no evidence that another reality exists or ever existed in which Amy is NOT saved by Sawyer. There is NO VERSION of that date which does not have the TTers appearing as shown.

To use the above example, I have been shown no evidence that another reality exists or ever existed in which Amy is NOT saved by Sawyer. There is NO VERSION of that date which does not have the TTers appearing as shown.

There is no version of that date that we have seen. And the only rule I believe that is being followed by the writers is not "nothing can be changed via time travel" but rather "nothing we have seen can be changed via time travel."

There is no version of that date that we have seen. And the only rule I believe that is being followed by the writers is not "nothing can be changed via time travel" but rather "nothing we have seen can be changed via time travel."

Well, we've been shown as much evidence of alternate versions of events as we have of them being clones - a theory which no one seriously believes.

So does "events played out differently previously and are now being changed" fit better than "what we've seen is the only way it's ever happened, but Desmond has special abilities" ? Mind you, this is not to say that the 'players' (Widmore, Mrs H, Ben, RA) aren't setting things up & manipulating in hopes of certain outcomes, but once it's done - it's done.

Which, BTW, is what we've been shown & told by both TPTB and characters in the story. The "changing the past" seems to make things unnecessarily complex, IMO. :undecide:

Mind you, this is not to say that the 'players' (Widmore, Mrs H, Ben, RA) aren't setting things up & manipulating in hopes of certain outcomes, but once it's done - it's done, and their "not supposed to..." rhetoric is meant to imply only a failure to meet their expectations or fit into their plan.

That's totally false. Just because things happened one way, doesn't mean that they couldn't have happened another way. There are many roads leading to the same destination.


Please base your counter-theory on evidence we've seen on the show, not gross speculation. The only thing here that is "totally false" is assuming we know everything about how this works.

The evidence shows that Desmond changed Charlie's future. The evidence shows that when Charlie turned off the jammer, the freighter mercenaries came to the island. The evidence shows that that made Ben scared. The evidence shows that Ben moved the island because Locke went to see Jacob. The evidence shows that when Ben turned the wheel the Losties begain time-skipping.

So to sum up, Desmond caused the Losties to time skip.

The evidence shows that Desmond changed Charlie's future. The evidence shows that when Charlie turned off the jammer, the freighter mercenaries came to the island. The evidence shows that that made Ben scared. The evidence shows that Ben moved the island because Locke went to see Jacob. The evidence shows that when Ben turned the wheel the Losties begain time-skipping.

So to sum up, Desmond caused the Losties to time skip.

You're making the gross speculation that the freighter people wouldn't have come to the island, even though it's specifically what they were searching for. Naomi had to come from somewhere. There are more people where she came from. You're saying something couldn't have happened, but you have no evidence, as well. We all know what DID happen, but your theory isn't about that--your theory is about what COULD/COULD NOT HAVE happened. That particular case is speculation on both parts. That (the could have/could not have) has no evidence either way.

When that happens, the proper way to think about it is not "Is that true?" It's "Does that work?"

We can't know if it's true until they address it. We can, however, say that it works, because there's no evidence against it.

That does leave room for a lot of other crazy, random ideas, like that Sawyer is the grandson of a giant T-Rex, but there's nothing against that, so it's valid, if out there. 'Tis how scientists view things, I'm afraid. Innocent until proven guilty.

Similarly, they've addressed the "one or more timelines" issue. The evidence backs up the one timeline idea. The possibility is left open by the show, however, that Desmond, and Desmond alone, can create an alternate branch of time.

The case of what could/could not have happened is speculation based on the opposite branch--that branch could still lead to the island moving. Did it, though? We don't know. But we can devise hypotheses that don't interfere with what we already know.

Please base your counter-theory on evidence we've seen on the show, not gross speculation. The only thing here that is "totally false" is assuming we know everything about how this works.

The evidence shows that Desmond changed Charlie's future. The evidence shows that when Charlie turned off the jammer, the freighter mercenaries came to the island. The evidence shows that that made Ben scared. The evidence shows that Ben moved the island because Locke went to see Jacob. The evidence shows that when Ben turned the wheel the Losties begain time-skipping.

So to sum up, Desmond caused the Losties to time skip.

What's your point? I was saying that there could have been a lot of roads that would have led to the freighter people coming to the island or Ben turning the wheel.

It's "gross speculation" to think that just because things happened one way, they couldn't have happened another way.

What's your point? I was saying that there could have been a lot of roads that would have led to the freighter people coming to the island or Ben turning the wheel.


That's called "negative proof" and is a logical fallacy.

That's called "negative proof" and is a logical fallacy.

What..? Seriously, what?

So, if Neil Armstrong hadn't landed on the moon, it would have been impossible for anyone else to get there after him? That's a "logical fallacy" in your opinion?

Hey Quacker,
In regards to your signature. I don't think Desmond changed anything. Whatever he was doing was how it was done in the one and only time he did it. He has the gift of foresight, I'll give him that. I don't think he is as special as Daniel thinks he is. The "uploaded memory" that Daniel gave him at the hatch accomplished what exactly? He showed up and told Elle Hawking that she had to help, which she was already close to finished doing. I think Desmond always postponed Charlie's death which always led to Charlie unjamming the signal which led to the freighter always getting too close which led to Ben always turning the wheel which led to these people always skipping around in time and fulfilling their destiny.

By the end of this season I think we will be set up that everyone will be back on the island in 2008 with resurrected Locke and the story can proceed from there and march into the war Widmore warned Locke was coming. Agreed?

So anyway Quack, I'm a fan of your posts on the 'Lage. I'm a single timeline guy, but I'm open to suggestions as new information is given each and every week. I like that you are a multiple time line guy who is open to suggestion as new info is given. It's a beautiful thing.

By the end of this season I think we will be set up that everyone will be back on the island in 2008 with resurrected Locke and the story can proceed from there and march into the war Widmore warned Locke was coming. Agreed?

So anyway Quack, I'm a fan of your posts on the 'Lage. I'm a single timeline guy, but I'm open to suggestions as new information is given each and every week. I like that you are a multiple time line guy who is open to suggestion as new info is given. It's a beautiful thing.



Oh ya, i'm totally open to suggestions. For one, I no longer think Amy's baby is Jacob, although I want him to be him, lol. I think it's Thomas.

I try to base my theories on evidence seen in the show and attempt to avoid logical fallacy, and speculation of what "could have happened" if something didn't happen, etc.

As far as everyone being back in 2008 in the end of this season? I don't know really, I think i'd prefer they were in 2008 B.C.E., lol.

I try to base my theories on evidence seen in the show and attempt to avoid logical fallacy, and speculation of what "could have happened" if something didn't happen, etc.

Unfortunately, Quackers, you did just that a few posts ago. You adamantly said that the freighter people would never have found the island. In post 173, I addressed your so-called "evidence" regarding that, as well.

Unfortunately, Quackers, you did just that a few posts ago. You adamantly said that the freighter people would never have found the island. In post 173, I addressed your so-called "evidence" regarding that, as well.


Actually no, I addressed the evidence of why the freighter people found the island. You speculated that they may have found the island some other way, which was not based on evidence. I'm not saying that they could not have found it some other way, only that there is no evidence to suggest they would have.

That's not what I'm referring to. You said:

The evidence shows that Desmond changed Charlie's future. The evidence shows that when Charlie turned off the jammer, the freighter mercenaries came to the island. The evidence shows that that made Ben scared. The evidence shows that Ben moved the island because Locke went to see Jacob. The evidence shows that when Ben turned the wheel the Losties begain time-skipping.

So to sum up, Desmond caused the Losties to time skip.

I responded:

You're making the gross speculation that the freighter people wouldn't have come to the island, even though it's specifically what they were searching for. Naomi had to come from somewhere. There are more people where she came from. You're saying something couldn't have happened, but you have no evidence, as well. We all know what DID happen, but your theory isn't about that--your theory is about what COULD/COULD NOT HAVE happened. That particular case is speculation on both parts. That (the could have/could not have) has no evidence either way.

Sigh. The post you just quoted from me is about reaching a conclusion from evidence.

They post you just quoted from yourself is "negative proof".

Well, we've been shown as much evidence of alternate versions of events as we have of them being clones - a theory which no one seriously believes.

Wow, you must have a lot of evidence of clones. Can you share some of it for us?

Which, BTW, is what we've been shown & told by both TPTB and characters in the story. The "changing the past" seems to make things unnecessarily complex, IMO. :undecide:

Actually, what I have claimed is much closer to what TPTB have stated....

Damon Lindelof: "when our characters are time traveling, nothing that they do can change the present or the future that you have seen." 2/28/08 Podcast

That's pretty clear to me and also pretty clearly NOT what you and most of the other single-timeliners are claiming.

Perhaps you misunderstood me, then. I said there's no proof backing up your claim, nor is there proof backing up the opposite. The rest of the original post says that a hypothesis is "innocent" until there is evidence against it. You have no proof--or, as you prefer, "negative proof"--backing up your claim that the freighter people would never have found it.

Magic Actor VS Quackers Round # 4,815,162,342
I love reading your posts. You're either married, mortal enemies or both.

By the way, Magic Actor has never acknowledged anything I've said in this thread. He's too busy trying to discredit Quackers. I love it. ;)

Meano Franko, that's because, at least as far as I remember, I agree with you. I'm a single-timeliner. My posts about an alternate timeline apply to Desmond, only.

I think Magic Actor is Donald Rumsfeld. "The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence".

I think Magic Actor is Donald Rumsfeld. "The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence".

You love twisting my words, don't you?

I've said numerous times, now, that my hypothesis about why they had to come back was simply conjecture. I've said that there was no evidence for or against it. There's nothing against it, and you keep trying to disprove it without any evidence, yourself.

There is ample evidence, however, for the single-timeline-with-the-exception-of-Desmond-manipulation, and it's foolhardy to think there isn't.

Damon Lindelof: "when our characters are time traveling, nothing that they do can change the present or the future that you have seen." 2/28/08 Podcast
It's not all that clear. I take it you're interpreting that as "You have not yet seen ways to change the present or future". But one could also interpret that as: "Present and future events that you have seen cannot be changed." That is, they won't erase the show's history. Single timeline.

I can't speak for Quackers, although I love his posts, but for me if the freighter folks still would have made it to the island in some way if Charlie didn't shut off the jammer, that doesn't change the fact that Desmond altered events both for Charlie, the freighter, and perhaps everyone else.

Just because course correction kicks in doesn't mean that the future isn't changed and an alternate reality hasn't occurred.

Meano Franko, that's because, at least as far as I remember, I agree with you. I'm a single-timeliner. My posts about an alternate timeline apply to Desmond, only.

Well, hello to you too :)
I don't even think Desmond has alternate time lines. Even with all the stuff that we thought he was doing different in the Scottish army during "The Constant," I believe those new actions led to him getting a dishonorable discharge which we knew he always got in season 3 but never knew why. These things always happened to Desmond, we only get to see it while 2004 Desmond experiences it so it seems new or different. Desmond is special in the way he perceives his timeline, but he has no ability to create an alternative or new one.

I'm a single-timeliner, including Desmond. Now we have something to debate :)

It's not all that clear. I take it you're interpreting that as "You have not yet seen ways to change the present or future". But one could also interpret that as: "Present and future events that you have seen cannot be changed." That is, they won't erase the show's history. Single timeline.

No. We're in agreement in that I interpret it as "present and future events that you have seen cannot be changed." I agree that they won't erase the show's history. They are keeping the integrity of the scenes that we have been shown.

However, to me, that does not suggest a single timeline. In fact, the qualification of their statement suggests quite the opposite. A single timeline would indicate that "present and future events cannot be changed" PERIOD. But that isn't what they said. There are plenty of events in the present and future that we have not be shown and can still be changed under the rule of the statement above.

Love that quote in your sig line OcenanicCustomerService. I think I will read Ulysses this weekend.

I can't speak for Quackers, although I love his posts, but for me if the freighter folks still would have made it to the island in some way if Charlie didn't shut off the jammer, that doesn't change the fact that Desmond altered events both for Charlie, the freighter, and perhaps everyone else.

Just because course correction kicks in doesn't mean that the future isn't changed and an alternate reality hasn't occurred.

I'm not disagreeing with you. My thoughts about Desmond's alternate path creation were simply to formulate an explanation regarding why they were "not supposed to leave." Desmond's ability, while not actually explained yet, seems to be the creation of an alternate timeline. But as I (and many, many, many other Single Timeline Theorists) keep saying, Desmond is different. Everyone ELSE follows the single timeline.

Of course, Meano Franko thinks otherwise, and as much as I'd love to discuss that point, the truth is, Desmond's ability is a mystery to me, too, and I can't think of anything that would seem to contradict his point, either. It seems like both hypotheses can coexist, based on the information we currently possess.
100%
However, to me, that does not suggest a single timeline. In fact, the qualification of their statement suggests quite the opposite. A single timeline would indicate that "present and future events cannot be changed" PERIOD. But that isn't what they said. There are plenty of events in the present and future that we have not be shown and can still be changed under the rule of the statement above.

Note that it's "CANNOT" be changed, not "WILL NOT." That indicates single timeline.

Wow, you must have a lot of evidence of clones. Can you share some of it for us?

If you'll share evidence of the multiple-timeline theory that I seem to have missed.

If you'll share evidence of the multiple-timeline theory that I seem to have missed.

Ouch. Burn! :)

I'm not disagreeing with you. My thoughts about Desmond's alternate path creation were simply to formulate an explanation regarding why they were "not supposed to leave." Desmond's ability, while not actually explained yet, seems to be the creation of an alternate timeline. But as I (and many, many, many other Single Timeline Theorists) keep saying, Desmond is different. Everyone ELSE follows the single timeline.

I suppose that Mrs. Hawking is different too? Is she special? She can see the future. How many others are there? Perhaps everyone who can time travel?:

DESMOND: Oh, my God. You knew that was going to happen, didn't you? [she nods] Then why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do anything?
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.

Please note that Mrs. Hawking doesn't say, "I can't change anything. He'll always get crushed under the scaffolding because whatever happened, always happened."

Instead, she says that if she saved him now, he'd just get killed in a different way later, because the universe would course correct for what she had done. Now, maybe you can try and argue that Mrs. Hawking really couldn't even do that. She was just blowing smoke.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mrs. Hawking has indicated that she has the same abilities that Desmond has to actually change the past, even if the universe will eventually course correct those changes. It's clear that at the very least she can see the future. And that, my friend, if you choose to accept it, starts to throw some serious chinks in your armor.

Please note that Mrs. Hawking doesn't say, "I can't change anything. He'll always get crushed under the scaffolding because whatever happened, always happened."

Instead, she says that if she saved him now, he'd just get killed in a different way later, because the universe would course correct for what she had done. Now, maybe you can try and argue that Mrs. Hawking really couldn't even do that. She was just blowing smoke.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mrs. Hawking has indicated that she has the same abilities that Desmond has to actually change the past, even if the universe will eventually course correct those changes. It's clear that at the very least she can see the future. And that, my friend, if you choose to accept it, starts to throw some serious chinks in your armor.

How so? Course correction has no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't think that Hawking has the same ability as Desmond, but even if she did, how would that disprove Single Timeline Theory?

She also doesn't have to see the future. The Hawking that Desmond interacted with could have been from the future. All that would require is knowledge of Desmond.

Also, saying, "If I. . ." doesn't mean that she actually can. She's providing an example to clarify things for Desmond.

If I made myself invisible, I'd walk around town naked.

Doesn't mean I actually can.

It's clear that at the very least she can see the future.

No it's not, that's just speculation. There are at least six people that flashed to the 70s that know that Desmond was pushing the button in the hatch. And that's only one way that Hawking could have got the information.

No. We're in agreement in that I interpret it as "present and future events that you have seen cannot be changed." I agree that they won't erase the show's history. They are keeping the integrity of the scenes that we have been shown.

However, to me, that does not suggest a single timeline. In fact, the qualification of their statement suggests quite the opposite. A single timeline would indicate that "present and future events cannot be changed" PERIOD. But that isn't what they said. There are plenty of events in the present and future that we have not be shown and can still be changed under the rule of the statement above.
Since we're interpreting this differently, I went and found the transcript (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Official_Lost_Podcast_transcript/February_28%2C_2008_%28audio%29) for context. Here's another quote from the same podcast. The episode in question is "The Constant":
Carlton Cuse: The hard thing about this episode was actually structuring the time travel elements - or consciousness traveling elements - and avoiding paradox. But that again is something that I think a lot of people have speculated about - "are there parallel futures, are there sort of multiple universes and worlds that exist in the future depending on how events in the past play out?" and that is not our intention.
Now, I've learned not to hold the producers to everything they say -- heck, they said they didn't know about a Blu-Ray release a few months ago --, but if we're going to quote the podcasts, that one seems pretty clear.

How so? Course correction has no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't think that Hawking has the same ability as Desmond, but even if she did, how would that disprove Single Timeline Theory?

What it would prove is that there is at least one more exception to the rules. Desmond is not the only one who is "special". And the more exceptions you need to account for, the less credibility your theory has.

She also doesn't have to see the future. The Hawking that Desmond interacted with could have been from the future. All that would require is knowledge of Desmond.

Absolutely true. She doesn't need to be special to have travelled from the future.

Also, saying, "If I. . ." doesn't mean that she actually can. She's providing an example to clarify things for Desmond.

If I made myself invisible, I'd walk around town naked.

Doesn't mean I actually can.

As I said, you can try and make the argument that Mrs. Hawking really couldn't have saved the guy from the scaffolding even if she wanted to. But I think the dialogue suggests differently.

As I said, you can try and make the argument that Mrs. Hawking really couldn't have saved the guy from the scaffolding even if she wanted to. But I think the dialogue suggests differently.

I think the dialogue is neutral in meaning. "If I. . ." is a rather disinterested opener.

No it's not, that's just speculation. There are at least six people that flashed to the 70s that know that Desmond was pushing the button in the hatch. And that's only one way that Hawking could have got the information.

I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how many people that flashed to the 70s knew that a man with red shoes would be crushed by a scaffold in London in 1996?
100%
If you'll share evidence of the multiple-timeline theory that I seem to have missed.

That's pretty much what I do. Just save me some time and check my posting history. Thanks.
100%
Love that quote in your sig line OcenanicCustomerService. I think I will read Ulysses this weekend.

If you can read Ulysses in a weekend, you are a better man than I! ;)

The way I've been looking at it is like this...
The island has a limitless source of energy beneath it that can manipulate time. The show can become confusing when you change perspectives. You say that Sawyer and Juliet killing the 2 Others changed something. I disagree. Let's look at Amy's perspective. She was having a picnic with her husband, Paul when the Others show up. They are killed from unknown people who came from the future. In the one and only time line they always appeared from the future because the island (which is an insanely special place with unique properties) pulled them out of their own time and put them their. Amy never lived through this event without them showing up. It happened once and one time only. I subscribe to the single time line theory. I also understand that with any other theory that I've subscribed to over the years, I could turn out to be wrong. But for now I'm sticking with it and try to explain things with it. If their are multiple time lines in play, Lost could go the way of Heroes and get insanely hard to follow and slip into utter chaos. With the single time line theory, it keeps everything tight and easy to follow, for me anyway :)

Whatever Sawyer is currently doing in 1977 has already been done in 2004. He is just experiencing it from his perspective and fulfilling his own destiny. As he lives through this experience in the 1970's he has complete free will to do anything he wants. As anyone who is in 2004 is concerned, it's already happened and can't be changed.

I'm not saying I'm right and it's infallible. I'm just saying it makes sense to me and I'm going with it until Jacob gives me an on screen narrative that says otherwise :)
On the one hand, I think you might be right with your single time line theory. This would seem to be supported by things we have been told by Daniel (the needle skipping on the record analogy, time being like a street and being able to move forward or backward on that street, but you can’t create a different street, etc.). But, on the other hand, I believe they are going to have to create different tracks / streets by ways of x-dimensional theories (4th or 10th or whatever) to explain how there can be two “versions” of Sawyer, etc. But even when I think about it that way, I run into problems that I will elaborate on in response to someone else’s post below.

Yes, from Amy’s perspective, this all happened just fine (with exception of Paul being murdered, of course). But, from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective, this is the second time they are going through 1974 (I don’t believe either one of them considered TT as a possibility before landing on the Island) and if this is a single time line, they already lived through this time as children (have all the memories that we all do) and that’s why I don’t understand how there could be two versions of the same person at the same exact moment in time. Unfortunately, I don’t think the single time line theory is going to work for LOST, because in order for it to be a single time line, it would have to be something like this:

Imagine a track of Sawyer’s life (time here on Earth), with markers all along it representing time (years, months, weeks, days, etc.).
Then, you have a marble moving along the track, representing the natural progression of time as we know it.
Then, you pick up this marble and move it from 2005 to 1974 (time travel).
This would explain how they moved in time from 2005 to 1974, but it doesn’t explain how they reconcile two versions of Sawyer, Juliet, etc., because when the first time the marble moved through 1974 (on the single time line), Sawyer and Juliet were each about 4. This is why I believe they have to get into things like x-dimensions and multiple timelines, creating mass confusion and utter chaos for the viewers (apparently, like what you are describing on Heroes- I’ve never watched it).

I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how many people that flashed to the 70s knew that a man with red shoes would be crushed by a scaffold in London in 1996?

From your post I understood that you meant her knowing that Desmond would end up on the island.

Anyway, I don't think that Hawking or Desmond would have been changing anything if they had tried to save the guy.

Now, I've learned not to hold the producers to everything they say -- heck, they said they didn't know about a Blu-Ray release a few months ago --, but if we're going to quote the podcasts, that one seems pretty clear.

It's clear alright....until the very next statement in that podcast when Damon muddies the waters again.

I'm in agreement with you again that we can't rely to heavily on the podcasts. I merely trot some quotes out when a single timeliner says that the writers have clearly told us just what the rules are. Because like many of the things in this show, it isn't always as clear as you may believe.

Because they're the same people from different times. . .there's no contradiction of idea, here. If you go back in time, there are two of you--you don't "merge" with your "past self."

If you traveled backward in time by five minutes, then for five minutes, there would be two people. After that five minutes, the "past self" would jump backward in time, leaving one person.



It's not changing what happened because nothing else ever happened. To Amy, Sawyer showed up at that point in her life, and there was never a time when this event didn't occur the same way. There's no change because, from the perspective of, say, 2007, Sawyer's deed was already built into history.

Regarding your comment, “If you go back in time there are two of you”- that’s what I am asking, “How can there be two of you?” What you’re suggesting is that we are like the photo example I used- we can be duplicated. I’m asking, “How this is possible” since we are not two-dimensional things?

Regarding your comment, “It’s not changing what happened because nothing else ever happened.” Perhaps nothing else happened from Amy’s perspective, but something else most certainly happened from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective. I’m sure they have very distinct memories of what their “original” selves were doing back in 1977. So, this goes back to the original question, “How is it possible to have two versions of Sawyer, or two versions of Juliet since we are not two-dimensional things?”
100%
You've got that all right, but you're not thinking fourth dimensionally. The matter that is that person was not created nor destroyed. It was just moved from one time to another. For time to work the way Lost has it working, all time has to exist simultaneously.


Because that's how it always happened. If you were observing all of space as time progressing normally, you would see Juliet, Sawyer, Miles, and Daniel pop into existence in 1974 and do those things. "Where'd those guys come from?", you'd think. Then you'd get to 2005 and see them vanish. "Oh, that's where they came from." All those alternate possibilities are just that -- possibilities. But they didn't happen.
I agree, x-dimensional (4th, 10th, whatever) kind of thinking is possibly where all of this is going, but a common problem with x-dimensional theories is they always assume that you can look at life as an “outside observer”- like an audience. I had a discussion with someone else on another thread and he referenced an article “Imagining the 10th Dimension.” With this logic, Juliet herself was a track that was in a loop and if a marble was moving along that track it would move throughout her life. The 7-year-old Juliet in 1977 and the 35-year-old Juliet in 1977 then intersected (explaining the two versions of Juliet). Again, in this example, the marble was an observer, being able to view all versions of Juliet, all at once, from birth until death. I saw two obvious problems with this logic: 1) Who, specifically, is this observer? 2) How does a loop / circle intersect with itself- other than at the beginning and the end?

I don’t have an answer for the first one (Jacob, perhaps??), but the answer to the second one would have to be that there must to be another track that would allow for an intersection on that original track / loop in a location other than the beginning / end. The problem with this, of course, is that Juliet is the “original” track. So once again, you are creating a second Juliet (track) and that brings me back to my original question, of how can there be two of anyone?

From your post I understood that you meant her knowing that Desmond would end up on the island.

Anyway, I don't think that Hawking or Desmond would have been changing anything if they had tried to save the guy.

How would changing what they do not be "changing anything"?

How would changing what they do not be "changing anything"?

If I save a guy from getting hit by a truck, I'm not changing anything, it just happens.

On the one hand, I think you might be right with your single time line theory. This would seem to be supported by things we have been told by Daniel (the needle skipping on the record analogy, time being like a street and being able to move forward or backward on that street, but you can’t create a different street, etc.). But, on the other hand, I believe they are going to have to create different tracks / streets by ways of x-dimensional theories (4th or 10th or whatever) to explain how there can be two “versions” of Sawyer, etc. But even when I think about it that way, I run into problems that I will elaborate on in response to someone else’s post below.

Yes, from Amy’s perspective, this all happened just fine (with exception of Paul being murdered, of course). But, from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective, this is the second time they are going through 1974 (I don’t believe either one of them considered TT as a possibility before landing on the Island) and if this is a single time line, they already lived through this time as children (have all the memories that we all do) and that’s why I don’t understand how there could be two versions of the same person at the same exact moment in time. Unfortunately, I don’t think the single time line theory is going to work for LOST, because in order for it to be a single time line, it would have to be something like this:

Imagine a track of Sawyer’s life (time here on Earth), with markers all along it representing time (years, months, weeks, days, etc.).
Then, you have a marble moving along the track, representing the natural progression of time as we know it.
Then, you pick up this marble and move it from 2005 to 1974 (time travel).
This would explain how they moved in time from 2005 to 1974, but it doesn’t explain how they reconcile two versions of Sawyer, Juliet, etc., because when the first time the marble moved through 1974 (on the single time line), Sawyer and Juliet were each about 4. This is why I believe they have to get into things like x-dimensions and multiple timelines, creating mass confusion and utter chaos for the viewers (apparently, like what you are describing on Heroes- I’ve never watched it).

While Sawyer is a child in America, there is an adult Sawyer on a magical island somewhere having sex with a girl named Juliet. How can we do this? I don't know. How can Lost do this? It's a show and they can have fun with time travel while also keeping it as "real" as possible.

Yes, from Amy’s perspective, this all happened just fine (with exception of Paul being murdered, of course). But, from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective, this is the second time they are going through 1974 (I don’t believe either one of them considered TT as a possibility before landing on the Island) and if this is a single time line, they already lived through this time as children (have all the memories that we all do) and that’s why I don’t understand how there could be two versions of the same person at the same exact moment in time. Unfortunately, I don’t think the single time line theory is going to work for LOST, because in order for it to be a single time line, it would have to be something like this:

Imagine a track of Sawyer’s life (time here on Earth), with markers all along it representing time (years, months, weeks, days, etc.).
Then, you have a marble moving along the track, representing the natural progression of time as we know it.
Then, you pick up this marble and move it from 2005 to 1974 (time travel).
This would explain how they moved in time from 2005 to 1974, but it doesn’t explain how they reconcile two versions of Sawyer, Juliet, etc., because when the first time the marble moved through 1974 (on the single time line), Sawyer and Juliet were each about 4. This is why I believe they have to get into things like x-dimensions and multiple timelines, creating mass confusion and utter chaos for the viewers (apparently, like what you are describing on Heroes- I’ve never watched it).

When you time travel backward, you don't merge with your previous self. You don't become a four-year old. You go back, just as you are, and continue aging as you would. That's how there are two of them. A good example of this is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

But she did, so what could have happened, never happened. Until we are shown some 'original' version that differs - not just forum speculation on what was 'changed' - the 'What happened..' rule seems to cover all non-Des TT we've seen.

There seems to be a real confusion between what "could have happened" without the TTers intervention, and "what did/should have happened". To use the above example, I have been shown no evidence that another reality exists or ever existed in which Amy is NOT saved by Sawyer. There is NO VERSION of that date which does not have the TTers appearing as shown.
My point in raising my “what if” question was to demonstrate that x-dimensional theory suggests everything can be seen at once, therefore everything is known, therefore things like randomness, ripple effects of our lives and how our lives intersect with everyone else that we have ever interacted with (not just family, friends and co-workers, etc. but everyone) don’t come into play. Just think of all the people we have encountered throughout our lives and think of all the “tracks” and therefore “marbles” that would entail (from my example above).

By blindly following the logic of, “what happened, happened” this could be used to explain anything that has ever happened or ever will happen in the entire existence of the world. That’s pretty convenient for the writers. It’s also utter nonsense, IMO.

How would changing what they do not be "changing anything"?

You can't "change what you do". You do this or you do that.

Regarding your comment, “If you go back in time there are two of you”- that’s what I am asking, “How can there be two of you?” What you’re suggesting is that we are like the photo example I used- we can be duplicated. I’m asking, “How this is possible” since we are not two-dimensional things?

Regarding your comment, “It’s not changing what happened because nothing else ever happened.” Perhaps nothing else happened from Amy’s perspective, but something else most certainly happened from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective. I’m sure they have very distinct memories of what their “original” selves were doing back in 1977. So, this goes back to the original question, “How is it possible to have two versions of Sawyer, or two versions of Juliet since we are not two-dimensional things?”

We exist in four or more dimensions. All that's occurred is that the body from 2004 underwent a fourth-dimensional adjustment. Time Traveling is NOT duplication. It's just moving. The 4 year old Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. As that Sawyer continued to age, along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. . . .
100%
My point in raising my “what if” question was to demonstrate that x-dimensional theory suggests everything can be seen at once, therefore everything is known, therefore things like randomness, ripple effects of our lives and how our lives intersect with everyone else that we have ever interacted with (not just family, friends and co-workers, etc. but everyone) don’t come into play. Just think of all the people we have encountered throughout our lives and think of all the “tracks” and therefore “marbles” that would entail (from my example above).

No, there is a "ripple effect." The future is simply the effect of the past's cause. Viewing the timeline as a whole, you can say, "The apple grew on the tree, then the apple fell from the tree, then someone ate it." That doesn't require multiple timelines. It just requires one where the apple grew, fell, and was eaten.

If I save a guy from getting hit by a truck, I'm not changing anything, it just happens.

If you know a guy is going to get hit by a truck because you can see the future or have knowledge of the past, and then you save him, you have changed things.

You didn't always save him, otherwise you wouldn't have knowledge that he was going to get hit by the truck.

It's clear alright....until the very next statement in that podcast when Damon muddies the waters again.

I'm in agreement with you again that we can't rely to heavily on the podcasts. I merely trot some quotes out when a single timeliner says that the writers have clearly told us just what the rules are. Because like many of the things in this show, it isn't always as clear as you may believe.
That quote goes on about course correction. Which is the crux of the disagreement here. I think we all accept it exists on the show. But: who can cause it to happen, and when it happens, does it qualify as changing previously set events?

If you know a guy is going to get hit by a truck because you can see the future or have knowledge of the past, and then you save him, you have changed things.

You didn't always save him, otherwise you wouldn't have knowledge that he was going to get hit by the truck.

But that can't happen. If he gets hit by a truck, he never gets saved by someone from the future. If he gets saved from getting hit by a truck, then he never actually got hit by the truck.

It can't be that he gets hit by a truck, so the time traveler goes back to prevent it, and succeeds. That's a paradox.

If you know a guy is going to get hit by a truck because you can see the future or have knowledge of the past, and then you save him, you have changed things.

You didn't always save him, otherwise you wouldn't have knowledge that he was going to get hit by the truck.

I didn't use the word "know" anywhere. If I do something, it just happens. I'm not changing anything, the past or the future.

Hawking knew that the guy died there because it had always happened that way.

The past always affects the future, but the future is fixed for anyone who has already experienced it. The future never affects the past because the past always was one way and one way only.

The past always affects the future, but the future is fixed for anyone who has already experienced it. The future never affects the past because the past always was one way and one way only.


It is theorized that in a "closed timelike curve" retrocausality would be possible, as in an effect happening before the cause... but it would only happen in extreme spacetime conditions like inside a traversable wormhole.


Open topics in physics, especially involving the reconciliation of gravity with quantum physics, suggest that retrocausality may be possible under certain circumstances.

Closed timelike curves, in which the world line of an object returns to its origin, arise from some exact solutions to the Einstein field equation. Although closed timelike curves do not appear to exist under normal conditions, extreme environments of spacetime, such as a traversable wormhole[22] or the region near certain cosmic strings,[23] may allow their formation, implying a theoretical possibility of retrocausality. The exotic matter or topological defects required for the creation of those environments have not been observed. Furthermore, Stephen Hawking has suggested a mechanism which he described as the chronology protection conjecture that would destroy any such closed timelike curve before it could be used.[24] These objections to the existence of closed timelike curves are not universally accepted, however.[25]

Retrocausality has also been proposed as a mechanism to explain what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" occurring as a result of quantum entanglement. Although the prevailing scientific viewpoint is that the effects generated by quantum entanglement do not require any direct communication between the involved particles, Costa de Beauregard proposed an alternative theory.[26] At an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium, University of Washington physicist John Cramer presented the design for an experiment to test for backward causation in quantum entanglement,[3] subsequently receiving some attention from the popular media.[27][28] Although Cramer's experiment has never been performed as of 2008, retrocausality has also been proposed as an explanation[29] for the delayed choice quantum eraser.[30]

The hypothetical superluminal particle called the tachyon, proposed in the context of the Bosonic string theory and certain other fields of high-energy physics, moves backward in time. Despite frequent depiction in science fiction as a method to send messages back in time, theories predicting tachyons do not permit them to interact with normal "time-like" matter in a manner that would violate standard causality. Specifically, the Feinberg reinterpretation principle renders impossible construction of a tachyon detector capable of receiving information.[31]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Current_topics

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm". ;)

Regarding your comment, “If you go back in time there are two of you”- that’s what I am asking, “How can there be two of you?” What you’re suggesting is that we are like the photo example I used- we can be duplicated. I’m asking, “How this is possible” since we are not two-dimensional things?

The problem with this, of course, is that Juliet is the “original” track. So once again, you are creating a second Juliet (track) and that brings me back to my original question, of how can there be two of anyone?

There is an infinite (or at least innumerable) number of everyone. You're a different person every moment. The version of me from last week had longer hair, since I cut my hair this weekend. The version of me from 30 years ago looked nothing like me. In spacetime, these versions of ourselves make up a continuous 4-dimensional wormlike creature with these different "versions" separated only by what we consider "time". But under General Relativity, the "space" and "time" components of spacetime can get extremely warped. Using the physics terminology Daniel used in his notebook, space can be warped from "real space" to "imaginary space" which is time-like. And time can be warped from "real time" to "imaginary time" which is space-like. So time and space behave like one another. This is also referred to as "the light cone tipping over", also referenced in the notebook. Under these conditions, something that is usually separated by time (the two versions of yourself), you will now experienced as separated not by time at all, but only by space.

That's how there can be two of someone at the same time.

Yes, from Amy’s perspective, this all happened just fine (with exception of Paul being murdered, of course). But, from Sawyer and Juliet’s perspective, this is the second time they are going through 1974 (I don’t believe either one of them considered TT as a possibility before landing on the Island) and if this is a single time line, they already lived through this time as children (have all the memories that we all do) and that’s why I don’t understand how there could be two versions of the same person at the same exact moment in time. Unfortunately, I don’t think the single time line theory is going to work for LOST, because in order for it to be a single time line, it would have to be something like this:

Imagine a track of Sawyer’s life (time here on Earth), with markers all along it representing time (years, months, weeks, days, etc.).
Then, you have a marble moving along the track, representing the natural progression of time as we know it.
Then, you pick up this marble and move it from 2005 to 1974 (time travel).
This would explain how they moved in time from 2005 to 1974, but it doesn’t explain how they reconcile two versions of Sawyer, Juliet, etc., because when the first time the marble moved through 1974 (on the single time line), Sawyer and Juliet were each about 4. This is why I believe they have to get into things like x-dimensions and multiple timelines, creating mass confusion and utter chaos for the viewers (apparently, like what you are describing on Heroes- I’ve never watched it).
I think the marble analogy is misleading, because once you put the marble back at 1974 it gives the impression that a previous event is repeating, as the state of the track is identical to the first time the marble passed 1974, yet there is only one marble there. Think instead of a graph with time across the horizontal axis, and space on the vertical axis. Sawyer's life is a squiggly line that moves left to right, while squiggling up and down through the various spacial places he visits. In 2004 the line shoots up to the vertical height that represents the island, then it in 2005 it suddenly stops (apparently disappears, if you were there watching him in 2005, like those in the helicopter were); while at the same time the line picks up at the same height back in 1974 and continues rightward through 1977. So throughout 1974 and 1977 there are two lines, at two different heights. On your normal graph paper, with its uniform grid representing "minkowski space", this looks like two lines, not one. But in General Relativity (as well as in Daniel's notebook) minkowski space is thrown out the window. So you draw this graph not on normal paper, but on rolled out taffy. Then you take the last 5 seconds of Sawyer's line in 2005, which is moving towards the right, and you stretch those 5 seconds waaay out to the left instead, until they reach him back to the same place but in 1974. Then you squish your taffy graph all flat again. Now we see, that in reality, Sawyer's life line is actually continuous, and it just loops back through the years 1974-1977.

That's one way of looking at it. Another may be even more valid. Remember when Richard was taking the bullet out of Locke's leg, presumably in 2004, and Locke asked Richard, "When am I?" and Richard responded, "Well, John, that's all relative." Why is it relative? Why not just 2004? Well, because if Locke had been wearing a digital watch, it would say it was 2005. It wouldn't be wrong; it would just be a matter of perspective. From Sawyer's perspective, it is completely valid to say it is 2005, when he is "back in 1974". If you consider that their bodies, their minds, their clothes, and everything they were carrying are indeed in 2005, yet all their surroundings are in 1974, that might be a better way to look at it. From that perspective, there is only one Sawyer in 1974, but the Sawyer in 2005 is living within a warp of spacetime such that everything he sees, hears, touches, and interacts with is in 1974. Yet the amount of time he's been alive, and how much he's aged, referenced from the year of his birth; and the amount of wear of his cloths, referenced from the year of their manufacture; all indicate that they are in 2005.

In the US Capital building, there is a particular place you can stand, under the central dome, where you can speak in the lowest possible whisper, and someone standing exactly opposite in the circular room can her you perfectly, and vice versa. So you could walk a good 50 feet away from someone, and hold a conversation in hushed whispers with them, as if you were standing back right next to them. Once could think of time travel like that. Sawyer is indeed in 2005, but he's standing in such a place in spacetime in 2005, that everything he sees, hears, feels, smells, and touches, is connected back to 1974.

Or maybe it's 1000x more complicated thinking about it that way, I'm not sure. :redface:

By blindly following the logic of, “what happened, happened” this could be used to explain anything that has ever happened or ever will happen in the entire existence of the world. That’s pretty convenient for the writers. It’s also utter nonsense, IMO.

But it could never be any different than "what happened, happened." Otherwise, you're saying things like: the events that happened in 1970 were one set of events when looking back from 1980, but a different set of events when looking back from 1981. The events are what they are, regardless of when you're looking back at them from. Anything else (anything other than "what happened, happened", violates the most basic laws of the connected sequences through time of cause and effect. That's why I said -- based on TPTB saying that they were intent on staying in the realm of scientific or pseudoscientific plausibility -- that it must be "what happened, happened", long before Daniel ever said that on the show, and before we knew there was physical TT, rather than just consciousness TT.

If you know a guy is going to get hit by a truck because you can see the future or have knowledge of the past, and then you save him, you have changed things.

You didn't always save him, otherwise you wouldn't have knowledge that he was going to get hit by the truck.

If you saved him, then what you saw (him getting hit by the truck) was not the future. The future was what happened. The future was you saving him from getting hit by the truck. That's why any timetravel scenario in which the past or future can be change is, IMO, nonsensical.

That quote goes on about course correction. Which is the crux of the disagreement here. I think we all accept it exists on the show. But: who can cause it to happen, and when it happens, does it qualify as changing previously set events?
No, I think Course Correction simply guides events (call them the future or the past, it doesn't matter), towards a certain end. It doesn't change anything, as every event in spacetime happens only once. But it helps cause certain things to happen.
100%
The past always affects the future, but the future is fixed for anyone who has already experienced it. The future never affects the past because the past always was one way and one way only.
Yes, as long as you bear in mind that what is "the past" for you may be "the future" for someone else, and vice versa. It's just a matter of perspective. So you can never say, "Event A cannot affect Event B, because A is in the future and B is in the past," Because in someone else's perspective/timeline/worldline, A could be in their past and B could be in their future.

Anything else (anything other than "what happened, happened", violates the most basic laws of the connected sequences through time of cause and effect. That's why I said -- based on TPTB saying that they were intent on staying in the realm of scientific or pseudoscientific plausibility -- that it must be "what happened, happened", long before Daniel ever said that on the show, and before we knew there was physical TT, rather than just consciousness TT.

If you saved him, then what you saw (him getting hit by the truck) was not the future. The future was what happened. The future was you saving him from getting hit by the truck. That's why any timetravel scenario in which the past or future can be change is, IMO, nonsensical.

I respect your posts tremendously, but I consider this to be circular logic.

What I do not get is this. If Sawyer prolongs the mans death, then everything that man does extra before he dies changes the future in some way. Might be a small way, but it changes it.

.
The point that is brought up by Ms. H, TPTB and modern physics is the sum of the past must equal today. History must remain consistent.

If a + b+ c past= a+ b + c present and a TT goes back and attempt to add "d" in to change the equation, this thing we're calling "course correction" will force a+b+c+d to reconfigure in a way that will still equal a+b+c present.

These "small changes" you are considering are either irrelevant to the equation or get corrected.




Let's look at Amy's perspective. She was having a picnic with her husband, Paul when the Others show up. They are killed from unknown people who came from the future. In the one and only time line they always appeared from the future because the island (which is an insanely special place with unique properties) pulled them out of their own time and put them their. Amy never lived through this event without them showing up. It happened once and one time only.

Great way of putting it.
The evidence shows that Desmond changed Charlie's future. .
We saw Desmond have a flash of Charlie's death by lightening. Des stepped in and spared Charlie that death....in accordance with Ms. H's words, along comes another death for Charlie...Des saves him..Universe course corrects...another death for Charlie.

The evidence shows Des was able to postpone Charlie's death. However, there is nothing to say what, if anything was changed.

Ms. H says the Universe has a way of course correcting. She implies that trying to make changes, to save a life, etc., in the past will be futile.....Des can buy the ring in 1996, but he's still never going to do anything that takes him off his path to the Island where he originated from.

Her message, if correct, says that if history has the switch being flipped that means it always has been and therefore will always be one way or another.


Just because course correction kicks in doesn't mean that the future isn't changed and an alternate reality hasn't occurred. It kinda does mean that.

That quote goes on about course correction. Which is the crux of the disagreement here. I think we all accept it exists on the show. But: who can cause it to happen, and when it happens, does it qualify as changing previously set events?
In the case of Lost we have heard that the Universe corrects itself. In other sci-fi stories "chronology protectors" get personified.......It's purpose is not to change events, but to force them back on track should they verge off.


It is theorized that in a "closed timelike curve" retrocausality would be possible, as in an effect happening before the cause... but it would only happen in extreme spacetime conditions like inside a traversable wormhole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Current_topics


Which IMO is exactly whats going on here! A CTCIn a Lorentzian manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzian_manifold), a closed timelike curve (CTC) is a worldline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldline) of a material particle in spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) that is "closed," returning to its starting point.



In a 1990 paper written by a number of authors including Novikov, Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle#cite_note-friedman-0), the authors write:
Events on a CTC are already guaranteed to be self-consistent, Novikov argued; they influence each other around a closed curve in a self-adjusted, cyclical, self-consistent way. The other authors recently have arrived at the same viewpoint.
The Novikov consistency principle assumes certain conditions about what sort of time travel is possible. Specifically, it assumes either that there is only one timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology), or that any alternative timelines (such as those postulated by the many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)) are not accessible

I respect your posts tremendously, but I consider this to be circular logic.

After making my way through the most recent posts, I hear what you are saying, OceanicCustomerService, but I think Pythag has a more accurate interpretation of the logic on the show (my op).

I don't know how you can answer this argument with science. On the points that you are arguing, it does seem to be a matter of faith (cliche, i know).

Take the duplicate self question...you end up, IMO, asking what actually defines "you." What would make the past you different than the current you? To me, it's similar to if a clone of you would be you (assuming 100% accuracy in the cloning process). I tend to agree with Pythag, because if I went back in time 10 years, the me of 1999 would be very different (by about 20 lbs). He'd be lacking the knowledge, experiences, etc. that I've gained in that time. Physically, the cells that were in my body would have all died and been replaced. Likewise, if I went back, 1 day or 1 hour, I think it's the same principle, but a matter of degrees. So in the sense, that's relevant to the TT question, it's not exactly me in any sense that would cause a paradox or duplicate matter issues just by being in physical proximity. However, I would like to see what happened when the two rabbits were in the same room...Also, if I committed a murder 10 years ago, the law would see me as the same person.

The other question seems to be whether Desmond/Hawking can change the future. For "changing the future" to be possible, one would have to be 100% certain of what the future held AND the cause/effect of a given event. If one is less than 100% certain, then we're dealing with someone guessing probabilities, and it would be impossible to determine if it was a change or a bad guess. If one were 100% certain, how can it change? The change would mean that my certainty was uncertain, which to me is a paradox. Course correction is also a paradox, because you were 100% sure you were on course. So, I think what Desmond/Hawking have, at best, is an affinity to see the most likely probability of a course of events, but there is some possibility for change/being wrong.

Obviously, whatever the writers do with the show could go either way. It would be great if this discussion continues with everyone accepting the possibility that they are wrong about Lost. It really is fascinating...

When you time travel backward, you don't merge with your previous self. You don't become a four-year old. You go back, just as you are, and continue aging as you would. That's how there are two of them. A good example of this is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
I wasn’t proposing that the two versions of Sawyer would merge- quite the contrary, actually. I just don’t understand how it would happen (i.e. there could be a 4-year-old Sawyer and a 35-year-old Sawyer both in 1974, one probably in Jasper, Alabama and one on the Island).

Regarding your, “You go back, just as you are, and continue aging just as you would. That’s how there are two of them,” still doesn’t answer anything. That may be an answer for how they age, but it isn’t an answer for how they both exist at the same time (1974).

These "small changes" you are considering are either irrelevant to the equation or get corrected.

So in a hypothetical scenario where a group of people leave an island that they hadn't left ever before in the past because someone has altered the course of events in time, and these hypothetical people live their lives off of this island for three years before the universe course corrects and brings them back to this island...in this hypothetical scenario, are these "small changes" irrelevant to the equation? Or does the eventual course correction mean that it still fits nicely within the single timeline theory?

We exist in four or more dimensions. All that's occurred is that the body from 2004 underwent a fourth-dimensional adjustment. Time Traveling is NOT duplication. It's just moving. The 4 year old Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. As that Sawyer continued to age, along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. . . .
100%


No, there is a "ripple effect." The future is simply the effect of the past's cause. Viewing the timeline as a whole, you can say, "The apple grew on the tree, then the apple fell from the tree, then someone ate it." That doesn't require multiple timelines. It just requires one where the apple grew, fell, and was eaten.
Regarding your statement, “The 4-year-old Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. As that Sawyer continued to age, along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up, then go backwards in time…” how would this happen? You’re saying what would happen (according to your theory) but you’re not saying how it would happen. How can another Sawyer be born (elsewhere, as you put it) when one already exists?

Furthermore, you say that, “TT is NOT duplication. It’s moving.” If the Sawyer we all know (2005, 35-year-old Sawyer) goes back in time, how is it not a duplication, since you also say, “along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up…”?

Using your “apple tree” analogy, how would the following work:
The apple grows on the tree, falls, and 4-year-old Sawyer eats it in 1974. He grows up, yada, yada, yada, is now 35 and ends up on the Island, a FDW is turned and he ends up back in 1974 just as that same apple falls off the same tree and beside him is 4-year-old Sawyer. Who gets the apple?

The TT logic they have offered us in LOST theoretically allows you to, at the very least, see yourself, if not interact with yourself. Remember Locke’s question of Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” Not to mention, we know they were back in S1 time, because of the beam of light from the hatch and Sawyer watching Claire give birth to Aaron. These “past” events were not changed, consistent with Daniel’s “what happened, happened.” But, since they also made it very clear that they could have seen themselves, how could anyone possibly argue that seeing your future self wouldn’t change anything? You’re telling me that if you suddenly ran into your future self, that event wouldn’t change the course of events to follow? Also, isn’t this why Locke was adamant about not going toward the beam of light at the hatch (when the others wanted to go toward it)- he was afraid of what might / would happen?

So in a hypothetical scenario where a group of people leave an island that they hadn't left ever before in the past because someone has altered the course of events in time, and these hypothetical people live their lives off of this island for three years before the universe course corrects and brings them back to this island...in this hypothetical scenario, are these "small changes" irrelevant to the equation? Or does the eventual course correction mean that it still fits nicely within the single timeline theory?

I don't believe anyone altered the course of events in time. I assume you mean the series of events that lead to the season 4 finale via Desmond. If you are, I believe that always happened in the one and only time line. Desmond's visions were just possible ways for Charlie to die. Desmond always postponed his death until the Looking Glass in the one and only time it happened. All the statements of what was or was not supposed to happen are from different camps with different rooting interests in the outcome of the island. It doesn't mean they went back in time and are watching it play out again.

If I want my coworker to show up to work tomorrow and he calls off I can always say you're not supposed to call off. It doesn't mean I had future knowledge that he went into work that day.

I found this article on Time Travel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm

If you went back in time and met your teenage parents, you could not split them up and prevent your birth - even if you wanted to, a new quantum model has stated.



Researchers speculate that time travel can occur within a kind of feedback loop where backwards movement is possible, but only in a way that is "complementary" to the present.
In other words, you can pop back in time and have a look around, but you cannot do anything that will alter the present you left behind.
The new model, which uses the laws of quantum mechanics, gets rid of the famous paradox surrounding time travel.

Paradox explained

Although the laws of physics seem to permit temporal gymnastics, the concept is laden with uncomfortable contradictions.
The main headache stems from the idea that if you went back in time you could, theoretically, do something to change the present; and that possibility messes up the whole theory of time travel.
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.
For most of us, the former option might seem most likely, but Einstein's general theory of relativity leads some physicists to suspect the latter.
According to Einstein, space-time can curve back on itself, theoretically allowing travellers to double back and meet younger versions of themselves.
And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past.

Weird laws

The researchers say these constraints exist because of the weird laws of quantum mechanics even though, traditionally, they don't account for a backwards movement in time.
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." Greenberger and colleague Karl Svozil introduce their quantum mechanical model of time travel on the ArXiv e-print service.


I know it doesn't explain why Danielle didn't remember Jin which I really don't want to go into.
It does explain that Jin didn't change the past.

Jin knows Danielle is in the future he saw her so is having stopped her from going into Smokey's den didn't change anything.
If Jin hadn't stopped her something else would have stopped her, the baby kicking and reminding her that she has to think of the baby or something else, but something always stopped her from going in his den.
Charlotte said she remembered that Daniel spoke to her when she was little. No matter how hard Daniel tries not to speak to her he is going to speak to her because it happened.

I haven't quite figured out how Desmond is special.

Regarding your statement, “The 4-year-old Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. As that Sawyer continued to age, along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up, then go backwards in time…” how would this happen? You’re saying what would happen (according to your theory) but you’re not saying how it would happen. How can another Sawyer be born (elsewhere, as you put it) when one already exists?

Furthermore, you say that, “TT is NOT duplication. It’s moving.” If the Sawyer we all know (2005, 35-year-old Sawyer) goes back in time, how is it not a duplication, since you also say, “along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up…”?

Using your “apple tree” analogy, how would the following work:
The apple grows on the tree, falls, and 4-year-old Sawyer eats it in 1974. He grows up, yada, yada, yada, is now 35 and ends up on the Island, a FDW is turned and he ends up back in 1974 just as that same apple falls off the same tree and beside him is 4-year-old Sawyer. Who gets the apple?

The TT logic they have offered us in LOST theoretically allows you to, at the very least, see yourself, if not interact with yourself. Remember Locke’s question of Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” Not to mention, we know they were back in S1 time, because of the beam of light from the hatch and Sawyer watching Claire give birth to Aaron. These “past” events were not changed, consistent with Daniel’s “what happened, happened.” But, since they also made it very clear that they could have seen themselves, how could anyone possibly argue that seeing your future self wouldn’t change anything? You’re telling me that if you suddenly ran into your future self, that event wouldn’t change the course of events to follow? Also, isn’t this why Locke was adamant about not going toward the beam of light at the hatch (when the others wanted to go toward it)- he was afraid of what might / would happen?

If you never ran into your future self then you will never go back in time and meet your past self. But if one day a future you shows up and interacts with you, it's ok, as long as you will eventually go back in time and have the same interaction, just on the other side of that interaction.

It helps me be ok with all of this is the fact that these people aren't willing participants in time traveling. Sawyer never said "hey, let's jump in this booth and go back to a specific day and do certain things." An amazing and unique phenomenon happened by accident and for a short period of "time" these people were jumping around in the history of the island and trying to merely survive. No one had an agenda other than trying to make it stop. I don't know, I like this more than being willing participants.

I don't believe anyone altered the course of events in time. I assume you mean the series of events that lead to the season 4 finale via Desmond. If you are, I believe that always happened in the one and only time line. Desmond's visions were just possible ways for Charlie to die. Desmond always postponed his death until the Looking Glass in the one and only time it happened.

Yeah, we've been through that one before. I thought that if Charlie had never really died in any of those situations that came up in the flashes then it must have been just mere coincidence that was causing Charlie to nearly be killed in a variety of unusual ways every day instead of course correction coming into play. I find that a tough one to swallow.

What about the incident in the pub with the cricket mallet? Desmond was not having a vision of the future that the bartender would get hit, he remembered it. There's a difference there. And sure enough, that would have happened again....if he hadn't changed the course of events.

Using your “apple tree” analogy, how would the following work:
The apple grows on the tree, falls, and 4-year-old Sawyer eats it in 1974. He grows up, yada, yada, yada, is now 35 and ends up on the Island, a FDW is turned and he ends up back in 1974 just as that same apple falls off the same tree and beside him is 4-year-old Sawyer. Who gets the apple?

The TT logic they have offered us in LOST theoretically allows you to, at the very least, see yourself, if not interact with yourself. Remember Locke’s question of Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” Not to mention, we know they were back in S1 time, because of the beam of light from the hatch and Sawyer watching Claire give birth to Aaron. These “past” events were not changed, consistent with Daniel’s “what happened, happened.” But, since they also made it very clear that they could have seen themselves, how could anyone possibly argue that seeing your future self wouldn’t change anything? You’re telling me that if you suddenly ran into your future self, that event wouldn’t change the course of events to follow? Also, isn’t this why Locke was adamant about not going toward the beam of light at the hatch (when the others wanted to go toward it)- he was afraid of what might / would happen?

First question - I think the 4 year old gets the apple. The 35 year old would have a vague memory of some older guy watching him eat the apple (if he, at 4, remembered the event at all).

Second question - The question should not be whether the future self could see the past self. I think that answer is yes and I don't see any potential issue with it. The important question is whether the past self could see the future self. I think the answer is yes, and there's no problem with it as long as the future self remembers seeing the other person. I would think Locke would remember looking up, seeing someone that looked like him staring back, and thinking he was temporarily crazy. His future self would put the pieces together, realize he wasn't nuts in the past, and understand what happened.

The problem with both of those scenarios is if the past self does not experience the situation, so then the future self doesn't have that memory, and then all of the sudden the past self does have that memory. I think what the show is asserting that the question of can/can't change is irrelevant, because the universe will course correct to eliminate the paradox, so there will always be some logical explanation (i.e., Danielle forgot Jin bc she's nuts, or Desmond being expelled from the military bc his future conscious jumped into his old body and behaved erratically, or Desmond not remembering Farraday until he has a "dream").

After making my way through the most recent posts, I hear what you are saying, OceanicCustomerService, but I think Pythag has a more accurate interpretation of the logic on the show (my op).

Obviously, whatever the writers do with the show could go either way. It would be great if this discussion continues with everyone accepting the possibility that they are wrong about Lost. It really is fascinating...

No problem. I fully realize that the single timeline theory is a strong one and is pursued by a large number of very smart, respected members here.

My mission in exposing holes in the theory was to combat a sense that a single timeline was definitive and 100% proven. I don't believe that it is, but many people (not all) were discussing it as such, and that bothered me. I think some of us have at least succeeded in opening up the discussion a bit. :)

That's an interesting article, NBC001. It suggests course correction and seemingly does not argue "whatever happened, happened".

My problem with course correction is that some events are somehow deemed more important than others. In the cold, uncaring scheme of the universe, why is Charlie's death important enough to require course correction but not the infinite number of minute changes his continued life causes?

I only say this for the sake of discussion, not as an argument for either side. I know my preferences affect neither science nor the writers (unless I learn to time travel some day....).

I
Jin knows Danielle is in the future he saw her so is having stopped her from going into Smokey's den didn't change anything.
If Jin hadn't stopped her something else would have stopped her, the baby kicking and reminding her that she has to think of the baby or something else, but something always stopped her from going in his den.
Charlotte said she remembered that Daniel spoke to her when she was little. No matter how hard Daniel tries not to speak to her he is going to speak to her because it happened.

I haven't quite figured out how Desmond is special.

Agreed, on Danielle. If for some reason, Jin had not been there, something else would have stopped Danielle from getting killed. Literally, there are an infinite number of things that could have prevented her from dying. However, I still believe that Jin always went and stopped Danielle. To me, it's probability versus fact.

With Daniel, we have to allow for the possibility that Charlotte was wrong. She was dying and delusional. It's possible young Charlotte spoke to Daniel. It's possible it was someone else. It's possible she retro-imagined it (kids do this sometimes). But I think once we see it play out on the show, that will be fact, which will eliminate all the other possibilities.

My mission in exposing holes in the theory was to combat a sense that a single timeline was definitive and 100% proven. I don't believe that it is, but many people (not all) were discussing it as such, and that bothered me. I think some of us have at least succeeded in opening up the discussion a bit. :)

Agreed. I believe in the single time line theory as much as anyone can believe in anything about a television show. I believed that the Losties were at odds with a bunch of uncivilized people in long, dirty beards at one time also :) I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong at any point in this series. But as of now, the STLT works for me and I'm happy with it. I don't like multiple time lines and I hope it doesn't pan out that way. If it does, I just hope they can pull it off and do these characters justice. This has been the greatest show in history so far and I only hope it continues to be up until the ending.

I haven't quite figured out how Desmond is special.


What about the incident in the pub with the cricket mallet? Desmond was not having a vision of the future that the bartender would get hit, he remembered it. There's a difference there. And sure enough, that would have happened again....if he hadn't changed the course of events.

Memories are visions of the past. Desmond remembered the pub incident incorrectly. Without going into the podcast accuracy issue, I think this has to at least be a strong possibility. Desmond's memory after the implosion is swiss-cheese.

Likewise, Desmond's visions are just memories of future events. We did not seem him watch the game where the bat incident didn't happen, and then he went back, and it did happen during the same game. It was a different game, and thus, an incomplete/inaccurate memory of the future. Imagine if he were drinking and woke up the next morning...the details might be fuzzy.

If you accept, that Desmond, at any point in his life, can randomly see both the past and future with varying degrees of certainty, then what's happening to him should fit the theory. That's why he's special. I don't think we've seen any evidence that Desmond can actually alter events, because he hasn't. Not saying he can't. Just saying he has not yet.
100%

My problem with course correction is that some events are somehow deemed more important than others. In the cold, uncaring scheme of the universe, why is Charlie's death important enough to require course correction but not the infinite number of minute changes his continued life causes?


To me, this is the really fascinating question, and one that I fear the show may not delve into. I have an idea, but I can barely get my head around it. It's just based on the premise that some events are more important than others. Maybe the Valenzetti equation explains this...

I think it boils down to some of the theoretical posts earlier in the thread about cause and effect (and probably statistical significance/insignificance). If I go work out at 5, and then am home by 10 when the phone rings, I get a call about a job offer. If I decide to go to dinner, as long as I get back by 10, I still get the call. So the decision to work out / dinner was insignificant with regard to the job offer. Now say, I am delayed at dinner in a traffic jam, maybe the universe course corrects and i get a message about the job on my voicemail or the caller decides (out of free will;) ) to call my cell phone, I still get the job. So the universe has decided to negate the cause/effect because I was meant to get the job. The event of me working out was irrelevant in the outcome of events.

To me, the above paragraph, is John Locke talking. I don't believe in the course correction, but I think that's how it would work and why it would render certain events insignificant. I am sticking to the universe doesn't care and things just happen because they happen.

Memories are visions of the past. Desmond remembered the pub incident incorrectly. Without going into the podcast accuracy issue, I think this has to at least be a strong possibility. Desmond's memory after the implosion is swiss-cheese.

Likewise, Desmond's visions are just memories of future events. We did not seem him watch the game where the bat incident didn't happen, and then he went back, and it did happen during the same game. It was a different game, and thus, an incomplete/inaccurate memory of the future. Imagine if he were drinking and woke up the next morning...the details might be fuzzy.

OK, you're losing me now. Are you trying to say that Desmond really just couldn't remember whether it was him or the bartender who got cold-cocked with a cricket mallet? That's kind of an important detail. I don't think we can say it is a "strong possibility" that he remembered that wrong.

Considering he had all the other details correct...the football game comeback, the song on the jukebox, the right pub, the right guy walking in at the right time with the mallet, how can you say there is strong possibility that he just forgot who got hit with it?

Let's just face the fact that he remembered an event happening, went back in time and altered the outcome of that event. Throw it into the "special" bin if you must. Please also remember that the visions he had of Charlie's deaths were presented in a far different manner from his recollections while being back in 1996.

If you accept, that Desmond, at any point in his life, can randomly see both the past and future with varying degrees of certainty, then what's happening to him should fit the theory. That's why he's special. I don't think we've seen any evidence that Desmond can actually alter events, because he hasn't. Not saying he can't. Just saying he has not yet.

If his visions of Charlie's deaths were visions of the future as you say, why isn't the alteration of those events considered the alteration of future events?

Regarding your statement, “The 4-year-old Sawyer would grow up, then go backward in time. As that Sawyer continued to age, along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up, then go backwards in time…” how would this happen? You’re saying what would happen (according to your theory) but you’re not saying how it would happen. How can another Sawyer be born (elsewhere, as you put it) when one already exists?

I don't really know how else to put it--it's hard to come up with an explanation when I don't even know where there's a supposed problem with two versions of the same person. It's not "another" Sawyer that's born--it's the same Sawyer. I don't see why this causes any problem. Why would the existence of Sawyer in the past prevent him from being born? There's no contradiction.

Furthermore, you say that, “TT is NOT duplication. It’s moving.” If the Sawyer we all know (2005, 35-year-old Sawyer) goes back in time, how is it not a duplication, since you also say, “along the way, elsewhere, he would be born, and that Sawyer would grow up…”?

Because it's still the same Sawyer, not a clone. It's not duplication because it's the one and only Sawyer. He just happens to be in a different time. If he went back 100 years, would you have a problem? I don't think you would. Why, then, would it be any different?

If I went back in time by 5 minutes, then for 5 minutes, there would be two of me. After 5 minutes, Past Me would go back in time, leaving just one Me.

Using your “apple tree” analogy, how would the following work:
The apple grows on the tree, falls, and 4-year-old Sawyer eats it in 1974. He grows up, yada, yada, yada, is now 35 and ends up on the Island, a FDW is turned and he ends up back in 1974 just as that same apple falls off the same tree and beside him is 4-year-old Sawyer. Who gets the apple?

The 4-year-old. You said the 4-year-old eats it. That means that the 35-year-old (who was always there) didn't eat it. He could have eaten it, but he didn't.

The TT logic they have offered us in LOST theoretically allows you to, at the very least, see yourself, if not interact with yourself. Remember Locke’s question of Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” Not to mention, we know they were back in S1 time, because of the beam of light from the hatch and Sawyer watching Claire give birth to Aaron. These “past” events were not changed, consistent with Daniel’s “what happened, happened.”

Right, so far.

But, since they also made it very clear that they could have seen themselves, how could anyone possibly argue that seeing your future self wouldn’t change anything? You’re telling me that if you suddenly ran into your future self, that event wouldn’t change the course of events to follow?

Not at all. You have to look at it from both sides. Past Sawyer sees Future Sawyer. Past Sawyer eventually goes back in time, becoming Future Sawyer, who will then see Past Sawyer.

It's not changing anything because, if the two selves meet, it's been experienced by the Past Sawyer, first.

What CANNOT happen is this: Past Sawyer never sees Future Sawyer. He goes back in time, becomes Future Sawyer, then meets Past Sawyer.

It's not that they CAN'T meet, it's that they DIDN'T.

Also, isn’t this why Locke was adamant about not going toward the beam of light at the hatch (when the others wanted to go toward it)- he was afraid of what might / would happen?

Locke doesn't know any more about the phenomenon than Sawyer. Plus, it doesn't matter WHY he avoided it. He avoided it, which explains why Hatch Locke never saw Future Locke--they never crossed paths.

If his visions of Charlie's deaths were visions of the future as you say, why isn't the alteration of those events considered the alteration of future events?

Because all of those possible events never actually happened. Charlie eventually died in the Looking Glass. That did happen and can't be changed. In the moment of Desmond having visions and "changing" his vision from everyone's reality he was fulfilling his own destiny to get everyone to the point of Ben's wheel turn and time skipping. We know that certain people will skip through time because John Locke already showed up in 1954 and led Richard Alpert to his own birth. That can't be changed. It happened.

When we watched Desmond postpone Charlie's death in season three, he was going with the flow and had free will to do whatever it is he was doing. Now as of the start of season 5, everything that Desmond did has already happened and can't be changed. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but it makes sense to me.

Now if we see an upcoming episode where Desmond relives a scene we have already witnessed and does something different....all bets are off :)

It's a fitting hypothesis, Meano Franko, but I do have one question. If that's the case, then from where do the futuristic visions come?

OK, you're losing me now. Are you trying to say that Desmond really just couldn't remember whether it was him or the bartender who got cold-cocked with a cricket mallet? That's kind of an important detail. I don't think we can say it is a "strong possibility" that he remembered that wrong.

Considering he had all the other details correct...the football game comeback, the song on the jukebox, the right pub, the right guy walking in at the right time with the mallet, how can you say there is strong possibility that he just forgot who got hit with it?

Let's just face the fact that he remembered an event happening, went back in time and altered the outcome of that event. Throw it into the "special" bin if you must. Please also remember that the visions he had of Charlie's deaths were presented in a far different manner from his recollections while being back in 1996.



If his visions of Charlie's deaths were visions of the future as you say, why isn't the alteration of those events considered the alteration of future events?

Concussion? :) I have to rewatch it. I've seen Flashes Before Your Eyes several times and I don't recall it exactly. Did he get knocked out? I ask because if I saw someone about to get hit, and I got knocked out trying to stop it, I wouldn't remember getting knocked out. I'd remember the person about to get hit, and whatever someone told me when I woke up. I clearly concede that this explanation may be flimsy or not apply to this situation, so I'll check out the episode again.

As for Charlie, I think someone just answered that. Just as memories of the past are imperfect, memories/visions of the future are imperfect. As I said in a previous post, I believe Desmond is seeing probable future, not the definite future.

The way I look at it, one person's future is another's past. So if you can change the future, you can change the past. I don't believe you can change the past because of paradoxes, but I can swallow the course correction as a solution to the paradox problem.
100%
It's a fitting hypothesis, Meano Franko, but I do have one question. If that's the case, then from where do the futuristic visions come?

Desmond's incident at the hatch. I believe, like in Watchmen, Desmond dissolved in the energy field when he turned the key, some theory of relativity mumbo-jumbo happened where he could simultaneously see all past/present events in his life, he became unstuck in time, and then he was reborn naked.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. The Watchmen and Slaughterhouse Five both have been cited as influences, and it makes sense to me.

Because all of those possible events never actually happened.

I'm sorry. I was actually responding to rkcrawf's statement that "Likewise, Desmond's visions are just memories of future events."

If you guys want to argue amongst yourselves that's fine. Just let me know when you figure out how future events never happened and possible events could never possibly happen.

When we watched Desmond postpone Charlie's death in season three, he was going with the flow and had free will to do whatever it is he was doing. Now as of the start of season 5, everything that Desmond did has already happened and can't be changed. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but it makes sense to me.

If my understanding of the STLT is correct, everything that's ever happened or will happen happened all at once. So how did Desmond have free will in season 3?

Now if we see an upcoming episode where Desmond relives a scene we have already witnessed and does something different....all bets are off :)

No, I'm quite certain that that will not happen. The one thing the writers are quite clear about is that scenes we have witnessed will not change. But that leaves a large amount of material that could still be.

It's a fitting hypothesis, Meano Franko, but I do have one question. If that's the case, then from where do the futuristic visions come?

Desmond turned the Fail Safe key after the countdown had expired and the results created this unique and special man named Desmond. I believe his specialness is being able to see possible outcomes. If I pull out of my driveway and make a right turn, I made a right and it always happened that way. My only motivation was needing to go in a direction that begins with a right turn. Now when Desmond leaves his driveway he is blessed with the ability to see what the outcomes of a left turn and a right turn will be. Desmond might make a right turn because he had a vision of a left turn resulting in death. Now, once the turn is made, regardless of motivation, it is done.

Desmond was choosing to postpone Charlie's death via free will, but he was destined to do so. Whatever his motivations were, we all arrived at Ben turning the Frozen Polar Bear Wheel and continued through Sawyer seeing Kate at the end of "LaFleur."

PS: I really hope the series doesn't end with anyone preventing 815 from crashing.

Desmond's incident at the hatch. I believe, like in Watchmen, Desmond dissolved in the energy field when he turned the key, some theory of relativity mumbo-jumbo happened where he could simultaneously see all past/present events in his life, he became unstuck in time, and then he was reborn naked.

But, see, if he could see all the events in his life, that still doesn't account for the visions. He SAW Charlie die. It didn't happen, so that wasn't an event in his life. He saw Charlie die another way. It didn't happen. He couldn't have been able to see his entire life plus a bunch of things that won't happen. The visions were reforming because the previous one didn't hold true. Hence, Desmond's flashes indicate (though not prove, in this case) that Desmond (but, again, only Desmond) can branch time.

Now if we see an upcoming episode where Desmond relives a scene we have already witnessed and does something different....all bets are off :)

I hope some writers are reading this, because that's what it would take for me as well. I would need to see something like Desmond deciding to stay with Penny at the stadium and not go on his race around the world.

It seems like there are two possible ways for this show to end. The 1977 Losties can either change what we've seen in Seasons 1-5, or the whole thing can loop over. I guess a third possibility is that we never find out...

If my understanding of the STLT is correct, everything that's ever happened or will happen happened all at once. So how did Desmond have free will in season 3?

Because having a future doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. The future is a product of a person's free will.

Desmond turned the Fail Safe key after the countdown had expired and the results created this unique and special man named Desmond. I believe his specialness is being able to see possible outcomes. If I pull out of my driveway and make a right turn, I made a right and it always happened that way. My only motivation was needing to go in a direction that begins with a right turn. Now when Desmond leaves his driveway he is blessed with the ability to see what the outcomes of a left turn and a right turn will be. Desmond might make a right turn because he had a vision of a left turn resulting in death. Now, once the turn is made, regardless of motivation, it is done.

I could accept that possibility.

Concussion? :) I have to rewatch it. I've seen Flashes Before Your Eyes several times and I don't recall it exactly. Did he get knocked out? I ask because if I saw someone about to get hit, and I got knocked out trying to stop it, I wouldn't remember getting knocked out. I'd remember the person about to get hit, and whatever someone told me when I woke up. I clearly concede that this explanation may be flimsy or not apply to this situation, so I'll check out the episode again.

You might not remember the action of being knocked out, but you would certainly remember that you were indeed knocked out. You'd remember the broken jaw, the severe headache, the story the cops told you, etc. You wouldn't forget all of that and think that someone else took the hit.

As for Charlie, I think someone just answered that. Just as memories of the past are imperfect, memories/visions of the future are imperfect. As I said in a previous post, I believe Desmond is seeing probable future, not the definite future.

Except Desmond's visions were not imperfect (save for one). He didn't have visions of a thousand different "possible futures", or some vague notion that Charlie might be in danger, he had a vision of one very specific future. One that no one could have predicted. He had a vision of lightning striking a very specific spot at a very specific time. A lightning strike that would kill Charlie if he didn't act to change it. And that memory was imperfect how?

The way I look at it, one person's future is another's past. So if you can change the future, you can change the past. I don't believe you can change the past because of paradoxes, but I can swallow the course correction as a solution to the paradox problem.
100%

So you're open to changing events if course correction eventually resolves any issues? Welcome to the dark side.

Because having a future doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. The future is a product of a person's free will.

Also, now that we are in season 5 we can go back and watch the season 3 DVD's with the new knowledge of the future. As we now watch Desmond choose to postpone Charlie's death we know where this will ultimately lead. At the time, much like Desmond, we didn't know the ramifications of Desmond's actions. We do now. I don't believe that in this story we are being told that there was ever a time line where the Oceanic Six never left the island or Locke turned the FDW when Ben did.

In 1996 Desmond's conciousness was thrusted into the future in "The Constant." This happened as a result of turning the Fail Safe Key and passing through the barrier on the wrong bearing. At that point in 1996, Desmond is now on a path to the island to push the button and turn the key. Otherwise this event that is the conciousness jumping would never have happened. Desmond has free will to get there....but his destiny is ultimately to get there.

Will Daniel tell Charlotte to leave the island only because he was told that he already did it? Yes! ...and it doesn't matter what his motivations are/were in doing this, only that it does/did get done.

Because having a future doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. The future is a product of a person's free will.

If there is never a time where the future has yet to be determined, if everything all happens at once but we just experience it at different times, when does free will come into play?