After Charlotte disappears, Daniel keeps on saying that he 'won't tell her'. Since Charlotte told Daniel that he approached her and told her she would die if she ever came back, perhaps Daniel is thinking that if he now chooses NOT to do this, then that proves that the past (and hence the future) CAN be changed. Any thoughts?

Ultimately I don't think it will matter because telling or not telling her had no effect on the outcome of events. That said it does kinda throw a spanner in the works of the what happened, happened thing.. and Daniel isn't Desmond so he is still having to follow these rules.

Like he said "What happened happened"

Daniel is one of the few people around who understand Desmond's significance in this regard. But even Desmond can only bend the rules, then the universe course corrects (RIP Charlie) and Daniel understands this as well.

I think Widmore and/or Ben are the only dudes who might try to use Desmond to severely mess up the universe - especially if they come to the realization that they can never regain control of the island. I think "the war" will come down to one (or both) of these players trying to screw over fate and unravel the timeline by doing so - Desmond and Daniel both have the potential to be pawns in all this, I guess.

I think he will try to change something and...
1.) he eventually realizes what he must do and still tell her as to not disrupt time/space.
2.) causes "the incident" in the process.

My thoughts

A. He tells her exactly what she repeated to him, lives her life, comes back to island and dies

B. He doesn't tell her, she still gets off the island, still spends her life looking for it and comes back and dies

C. He doesn't tell her, she doesn't make it off the island, the purge happens and she dies on the island (course correction)

Either way I think she was always destined to die on the island.

Like he said "What happened happened"

Well this is exactly the problem with time travel. The Whatever Happened, Happened rule is fine so long as characters are not aware of their specific fates. But once someone is made aware of what is 'supposed to', or indeed what 'has always and will always' happen, they could change it. Daniel is a free-thinking conscious being. He has the freedom of choice NOT to tell charlotte anything, despite the fact that Charlotte tells us he did. If Charlotte had not told Daniel his own future/her past then I can understand how he would be powerless to avoid it. But since he now KNOWS that he talked to Charlotte in the past, what's to stop him choosing not to now. And don't just come back to me with 'what happened happened' again, I want a serious discussion of this. Because I believe these are exactly the sort of questions Daniel (and the show) are going to be dealing with in the episodes to come.

But since he now KNOWS that he talked to Charlotte in the past, what's to stop him choosing not to now.

Fate, the universe, God.... whatever you want to call it. Michael couldn't kill himself - not for a lack of trying.

We have a couple people that could try to change the rules in all of this. My thinking is that Jin is a very important player in course correcting this line of time. He was not on the list from Ben to Michael in season 2 for a reason I believe.

Possibly that reason is that he died before Ben learned who he was.

Or perhaps that Jin is Jacob and to keep his love Sun from returning to the island he found it necessary to exclude himself from the list.

Or perhaps he wasn't supposed to have survived the explosion after all.

Either way, Ben did everything he could to get Juliette back to the island (see discussion in "the other woman" between Harper and Juliette about Juliette reminding Ben of "her"). Did everything he could to keep Jack, Sawyer, Kate, and Hurley together. But not too many times have we seen Ben interact with Jin (or at all - kind of foggy on that). Also I think that at the time Ben didn't realize the importance of Locke to all of this.

So the war that Widmore was mentioning is probably the Purge and that is what needs to be broken - so who will be in the best position to break it from the timeline. Clearly Locke is the logical choice (but not sure what time he is in right now) but I am leaning towards Jin.

Fate, the universe, God.... whatever you want to call it. Michael couldn't kill himself - not for a lack of trying.

But unless some higher being/God/Fate physically takes control of Daniel then there is nothing stopping him from speaking to Charlotte or not speaking to Charlotte. I have the same thoughts about "what happened happened" that other people are having. Yes I think it applies to certain situations, but when you are aware of what you're "supposed" to do, then I believe yes you certainly can change it.

Maybe the universe could course correct, but I don't see how that would be possible in this situation being that it was Daniel and Daniel alone that talked to Charlotte.

I'm not sure there really are any "rules". Seems like an artificial construct, devised by those who wish to use TT for their own benefit.

She said there was a crazy man who scared her. Then she said I THINK that man was you daniel. But as confused as she was, it could have just as easily been another one of the losties, Jin trying to pay her back for trying to keep Sun off the island or something along those lines, but she still had seen Daniel, and her mind just made the wrong connection.

JHM explains it best in post #6.

But this is "can't break the rules" Daniel who, immediately after stating the rules can't be changed...attempts to change them by talking with Desmond.

I still believe there is a reason he is using the word "rules" instead of "laws" as in the laws of physics.

I also think he's making it up as he goes along.

Course correcting is one thing...but a major overhaul, or attempted overhaul of a timeline creates Hawking's assertions of "God Help Us All" or "unpredictable" happenings.

Everyone quotes Dan's "whatever happened, happened" line while ignoring another, almost as important line:

"It doesn't matter what you (we?) do."

He may well try to break the rules, but I believe he still thinks that even if he manages to avoid whatever situation it was that Charlotte described, it won't actually affect any events that would change history.

Now everyone quickly jumps on and says "but if he doesn't tell her, that in itself changes events!"

Well, yes and no. Remember "Course Correction" and a little episode called "Flashes Before your Eyes?" Considering the things that we learned then and since then, it seems that minor happenstances can be slightly adjusted without altering the larger events that affect life, death, and history (things that the island seems truly "interested" in).

Also, please don't jump on my logic to say that "a conversation that leads to a death qualifies". So many variables are involved with Course Correction that it seems only prudent to allow that only the bullet entering the brain (or the UV flashes that cause brain hemorrhages, for example) , be seen as the event that leads to the death.

Remember: everyone is subject to Course Correction; Desmond is just the only one whose consciousness sees the changes (so far).

Remember: everyone is subject to Course Correction; Desmond is just the only one whose consciousness sees the changes (so far).


If everyone is subject to course correction, how would the course be corrected if someone (aka Charlotte) were to die when they weren't supposed to?

If everyone is subject to course correction, how would the course be corrected if someone (aka Charlotte) were to die when they weren't supposed to?

I don't know: that's an exercise in creativity for the writers. What I do know is how Mrs. hawking put it: "The Universe has a way of... 'Course-Correcting'."

She didn't limit it to Desmond or anyone; she presented it as a "universal" rule (in every sense of the word). Just because Desmond is the only one who can see "through" time doesn't mean that a million small Course Corrections don't take place every day.

A better answer to your question might be the first half of Mrs. Hawking's response I referred to above: regarding the man with the red shoes.

If he was saved from the scaffold, a taxi would have hit him, if he was warned about the taxi he would have fallen in the shower.

I'll leave you with one other Hawking quote (badly paraphrased by myself):

"Stop worrying about 'how' it will happen and ask yourself if you believe it will work."

i'm hoping the writers have already come up with a clever way to inadvertently force daniel to tell charlotte at some point, or maybe accidentally let it slip or somehow unintentionally warns charlotte like she described.

i'm hoping the writers have already come up with a clever way to inadvertently force daniel to tell charlotte at some point, or maybe accidentally let it slip or somehow unintentionally warns charlotte like she described.


I'd rather they come up with a clever way for Daniel to not tell Charlotte to leave. I'd be sad if she turned out to really be dead.

Well this is exactly the problem with time travel. The Whatever Happened, Happened rule is fine so long as characters are not aware of their specific fates. But once someone is made aware of what is 'supposed to', or indeed what 'has always and will always' happen, they could change it. Daniel is a free-thinking conscious being. He has the freedom of choice NOT to tell charlotte anything, despite the fact that Charlotte tells us he did. If Charlotte had not told Daniel his own future/her past then I can understand how he would be powerless to avoid it. But since he now KNOWS that he talked to Charlotte in the past, what's to stop him choosing not to now. And don't just come back to me with 'what happened happened' again, I want a serious discussion of this. Because I believe these are exactly the sort of questions Daniel (and the show) are going to be dealing with in the episodes to come.

I don't see how this proves that "whatever happened, happened" is untrue.

Daniel of course can say anything to Charlotte, or choose not to tell. But that doesn't change the fact that Charlottes whole life until the moment she died has already happened. If Daniel talks to young Charlotte, that means that in Charlottes past, in the late 70's, a wierd beard-dude spoke to her.

Daniel put it so simply in this episode: "It doesn't matter what we do, whatever happened, happened". I think this is the easiest thing to realize.

I don't see how this proves that "whatever happened, happened" is untrue.

Daniel of course can say anything to Charlotte, or choose not to tell. But that doesn't change the fact that Charlottes whole life until the moment she died has already happened. If Daniel talks to young Charlotte, that means that in Charlottes past, in the late 70's, a wierd beard-dude spoke to her.

Daniel put it so simply in this episode: "It doen't matter what we do, whatever happened, happened". I think this is the easiest thing to realize.

I'm jealous of your succinctness. This hits the nail on the head, take notes, all.

If "whatever happened, happened" is true, why did Desmond get hit with the cricket bat when he remembers the bartender being hit with it?

If "whatever happened, happened" is true, why did Desmond get hit with the cricket bat when he remembers the bartender being hit with it?

LOL, now you're ignoring the other thing that Daniel said (and PROVED).

Desmond's TT can change things that affect himself directly. Daniel already said to Desmond that he was exceptional, in fact that premise that whatever happens, happens was specifically declared NOT to apply to Desmond. The past will eventually change again, the minor changes that Des has wrought foreshadow it. When you try to destroy one of Dan's "rules" with another of his "rules", you've argued a premise based on it's own conclusion in the first place. (Begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)). Daniel's "rules" openly contradict themselves. Desmond provides a framework in which the rules can and will be broken.

One thing some people need to realize is that in this case, THE RULES WERE MADE TO BE BROKEN. The past has already been changed at least twice: it will happen again, count on it. It doesn't change the rules, it just breaks them (temporarily, I'm sure).

If you can break the rules (like Desmond), it begs the question: are there really any rules?

If you can break the rules (like Desmond), it begs the question: are there really any rules?

Actually you're right, you're begging the question again.

If there were no rules, there would be nothing to break. The fact that we have seen two histories prove that the rules exist.

Otherwise, the past would be utterly malleable, and only the present in which the time-traveler existed would ultimately matter. This, however, would basically lead to infinite universe theories, string theory, etc., and a serious paradox issue with the fact that many survivors have been split up in different times. The writers have said that they're not going there, so yes, I do think that there are rules.

Regarding the "Daniel can choose to warn Charlotte or not," I'm hoping for some totally unintentional -- he plans not to say anything to Charlotte, and says it to someone else, she overhears. Or he tells the wrong little girl. Or maybe Charlotte was just wrong -- it wasn't him that warned her at all. But this is also a question that has been bugging me. What would happen if he didn't say anything to her at all? Then where did that memory come from?

He may choose not to tell her, he may plan not to, but obviously, since she remembers it, he does at some point. And he's probably really, really scary at the time since he will have been obsessing & trying to avoid that moment happening at all.

So many people assume that just because he wants to avoid that conversation, he'll actually restrain himself when the time comes. That's presumptuous about both his character's strength of will (which we haven't seen Dan exhibit much of yet), and about the inability of the writers to put him in a situation where he simply can't help issuing the warning. I have more faith in the latter than the former.

I can't imagine Dan telling Charlotte to leave now that he knows it will lead to her demise. If he doesn't want to tell her, he won't. Fate vs. Free Will.

I've thought about this and even though at this point Daniel hasn't talked to little Charlotte yet, it seems to me that the fact that she told him that he did means that he will. If the encounter doesn't happen, how can she remember it and tell Daniel about it? It's like Locke meeting a young Widmore. We see Widmore as an older man therefore even if Locke tried to kill a young Widmore, it wouldn't happen. If the future can be changed based on things they do while visiting the past it would be like Back to the Future. That scene with Charlotte would mysteriously morph into something different than what we saw. She wouldn't mention her memory of Daniel talking to her as a little girl.

Not only what the above people said, but also chew on this:

Desmond likes the drink. Desmond was in a bar. Desmond going to the bar is an event, but inside that event are many sub-events. Desmond could talk to some hotties, he could choose to find out who number two works for, he could play some darts, whatever. But since Desmond is a drinker, and he was there to watch the game before his future consciousness jumped in we can assume that he was going to leave the bar in a less than 100% operational state, whether it was due to a concussion or an overindulgence of booze. The next day effects would be similar as well.

Also, since the show seems to be following the novikov self sustaining principle, because Desmond is a time traveller, his reality, and possibly all of reality since time travel is a fact on the show, is interconnected such that these events unfolded the way they unfolded because of the interference of time travel, and always have. Desmond may have THOUGHT he got blitzed and rolled out of that place, and he knew the guy was coming in with the cricket bat, but it's just as probably he always got hit by the cricket bat. Because while he does seem to predict the situation, in reality he's already been through the situation, even though from our perspective, and to a degree his, he's going through it for the first time. He has the foreknowledge because he has a recollection of some of the event, his physical brain having been present at the time, but it was inhabited by his future consciousness. Since that's difficult for the brain to understand, he merely supressed it, it rose as the sequence of events was unfolding, and he probably always took one to the face.

Not only what the above people said, but also chew on this:

Desmond likes the drink. Desmond was in a bar. Desmond going to the bar is an event, but inside that event are many sub-events. Desmond could talk to some hotties, he could choose to find out who number two works for, he could play some darts, whatever. But since Desmond is a drinker, and he was there to watch the game before his future consciousness jumped in we can assume that he was going to leave the bar in a less than 100% operational state, whether it was due to a concussion or an overindulgence of booze. The next day effects would be similar as well.

Also, since the show seems to be following the novikov self sustaining principle, because Desmond is a time traveller, his reality, and possibly all of reality since time travel is a fact on the show, is interconnected such that these events unfolded the way they unfolded because of the interference of time travel, and always have. Desmond may have THOUGHT he got blitzed and rolled out of that place, and he knew the guy was coming in with the cricket bat, but it's just as probably he always got hit by the cricket bat. Because while he does seem to predict the situation, in reality he's already been through the situation, even though from our perspective, and to a degree his, he's going through it for the first time. He has the foreknowledge because he has a recollection of some of the event, his physical brain having been present at the time, but it was inhabited by his future consciousness. Since that's difficult for the brain to understand, he merely supressed it, it rose as the sequence of events was unfolding, and he probably always took one to the face.

Good stuff. I didn't even think too deeply into this since Des is basically exempt anyway, but you bring up some good points. His TT is definitely of the "consciousness" variety, so who's to say that his memory isn't the only place that the other timeline existed?

It would be as "real" as any other timeline that was obliterated by altered past events, it would just be that Des changed it and so is the only one aware of the change, everyone else just had a rough day.

Nice post.

Well this is exactly the problem with time travel. The Whatever Happened, Happened rule is fine so long as characters are not aware of their specific fates. But once someone is made aware of what is 'supposed to', or indeed what 'has always and will always' happen, they could change it. Daniel is a free-thinking conscious being. He has the freedom of choice NOT to tell charlotte anything, despite the fact that Charlotte tells us he did. If Charlotte had not told Daniel his own future/her past then I can understand how he would be powerless to avoid it. But since he now KNOWS that he talked to Charlotte in the past, what's to stop him choosing not to now. And don't just come back to me with 'what happened happened' again, I want a serious discussion of this. Because I believe these are exactly the sort of questions Daniel (and the show) are going to be dealing with in the episodes to come.


Daniel DOES have free will to tell or not tell Charlotte. And yet we know -- and he knows -- what he will, in free will, do. He's telling himself that he's not going to tell her. He doesn't want to tell her. But he's going to change his mind, or lose control of his emotions. That's just what's going to happen. A knowledge of the future doesn't mean that there is no free will.

The fallacy that knowledge of the future is contradictory to free will, I believe, comes from the illusion that the past is inherently different from the future. There is no "past" or "future" other than how we perceive the passage of time. The concept of "past" and "future" are just artifacts of whatever particular moment of time we happen to be consciously experiencing at the moment. This gives the illusion that the past is set in stone while the future is non-existent. But that's not the case; it's at the very least not the case on the show, as you can't have people from the future come and visit you if the future doesn't exist yet.

If something is done in the past, everyone can know about that thing, yet that doesn't imply to anyone that the thing wasn't done in freedom. But it's no different for something done in the future, as the "already done" part is only a matter of perspective, of what we can consciously remember, and of the effects of those actions we can at that moment perceive with our senses.

It just occurred to me that there is a very good biblical parallel to the Daniel situation. Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him three times before **** crows. Peter, just like Daniel, said, that would never happen. Then later, as events spun totally out of control after Jesus' arrest, Peter, with that knowledge of the future far from his mind at the moment, and in potential danger for his life, three times denied any association with Jesus, and then immediately the **** crowed and he remembered and realized the significance of what he had just done, and cried.
100%
If the future can be changed based on things they do while visiting the past it would be like Back to the Future.
Unfortunately, I think that Back to the Future sort of defined in the popular collective conventional wisdom how time travel should work. Too bad Lost didn't come first.
100%
I can't imagine Dan telling Charlotte to leave now that he knows it will lead to her demise. If he doesn't want to tell her, he won't. Fate vs. Free Will.
But he did. The Dan that told Charlotte was the same Dan that watched her die, and that murmured to himself that he wasn't going to tell her. He doesn't want to tell her now, but he will want to tell her when he told her.

Even if you think of this as the second time through the timeline (which I think is clearly wrong), what would make this time different? The first time through the timeline, Dan was still there from the future, he still watched Charlotte die, which is why he was warning her it, and he was still doing everything we're currently seeing him doing.

Ok, revising my theory on where, when, and how Charlotte is now.

In "This Place is Death" a CTT'ing Charlotte said these cryptic words prior to her death: "I know more about ancient Carthage than Hannibal himself". Which is impossible considering the Romans wiped out virtually all trace of it.

I'm now of the opinion that "dead" Charlotte stayed in ancient 4 toed statue time, resurrected, and is now learning about ancient Carthar - from the Carthars themselves.

In "This Place is Death" a CTT'ing Charlotte said these cryptic words prior to her death: "I know more about ancient Carthage than Hannibal himself". Which is impossible considering the Romans wiped out virtually all trace of it.

There was a Carthaginian Empire. All information wouldn't be stored in one city.

Plus, the Romans refounded Carthage, so it was still Carthage. Then the Roman Carthage was taken over and destroyed by Islamic conquerors.

Just one quick search (even on wikipedia) would show that we do know a lot about Ancient Carthage.

I stand by my theory.

Plus it would be a great device to tell the story of the ancients on the island.

I stand by my theory.

Yes, it's much more likely that she learned about ancient Carthage because she

1. died
2. resurrected
3. learned about ancient Carthage by it's original inhabitants in the past
4. then somehow magically travelled back to the time when she died to say those words
5. and then died again

And not because she was a

1. cultural anthropologist

Daniel DOES have free will to tell or not tell Charlotte. And yet we know -- and he knows -- what he will, in free will, do. He's telling himself that he's not going to tell her. He doesn't want to tell her. But he's going to change his mind, or lose control of his emotions. That's just what's going to happen. A knowledge of the future doesn't mean that there is no free will.

The fallacy that knowledge of the future is contradictory to free will, I believe, comes from the illusion that the past is inherently different from the future. There is no "past" or "future" other than how we perceive the passage of time. The concept of "past" and "future" are just artifacts of whatever particular moment of time we happen to be consciously experiencing at the moment. This gives the illusion that the past is set in stone while the future is non-existent. But that's not the case; it's at the very least not the case on the show, as you can't have people from the future come and visit you if the future doesn't exist yet.

If something is done in the past, everyone can know about that thing, yet that doesn't imply to anyone that the thing wasn't done in freedom. But it's no different for something done in the future, as the "already done" part is only a matter of perspective, of what we can consciously remember, and of the effects of those actions we can at that moment perceive with our senses.

It just occurred to me that there is a very good biblical parallel to the Daniel situation. Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him three times before **** crows. Peter, just like Daniel, said, that would never happen. Then later, as events spun totally out of control after Jesus' arrest, Peter, with that knowledge of the future far from his mind at the moment, and in potential danger for his life, three times denied any association with Jesus, and then immediately the **** crowed and he remembered and realized the significance of what he had just done, and cried.
100%

Unfortunately, I think that Back to the Future sort of defined in the popular collective conventional wisdom how time travel should work. Too bad Lost didn't come first.
100%

But he did. The Dan that told Charlotte was the same Dan that watched her die, and that murmured to himself that he wasn't going to tell her. He doesn't want to tell her now, but he will want to tell her when he told her.

Even if you think of this as the second time through the timeline (which I think is clearly wrong), what would make this time different? The first time through the timeline, Dan was still there from the future, he still watched Charlotte die, which is why he was warning her it, and he was still doing everything we're currently seeing him doing.


No, you're reasoning is stating that there is no free will. If everything has already happened and is determined, then how can we make a choice? We can't, we only think we can, hence no free will, just the illusion of it.

You have to come down on one side, free will or determinism, there's no middle ground.

No, you're reasoning is stating that there is no free will. If everything has already happened and is determined, then how can we make a choice? We can't, we only think we can, hence no free will, just the illusion of it.

You have to come down on one side, free will or determinism, there's no middle ground.

It is alway YOU making the choices. Just because "whatever happened, happened", doesn't mean that you didn't have the the choice to choose freely when it happened the first time.

No, you're reasoning is stating that there is no free will. If everything has already happened and is determined, then how can we make a choice? We can't, we only think we can, hence no free will, just the illusion of it.

Whose reasoning is this? These are the rules set up for us by way of Hawking. If we are to believe her, there absolutely is no free will. Why bother saving the man in the red shoes? He's going to die anyway. She knows this likely because she's tried. Just as Richard knew Locke would die before returning to the island. Dying wasn't a pre-requisite in that Locke must make that sacrifice. Dying was just the chronological order of things. Richard, armed with future knowledge, knows that Locke dies, then they return.