What seems to be a little difficult to understand about the time-travel for some people is that there's two different perspectives involved:

The perspective of the time-traveller, who experiences his own life in a linear fashion, but experiences events in the outside world (note: this includes the island, "outside world" in this context refers to the world as a whole outside the time-traveller's person, or group of time-travellers) in a non-linear fashion...

And the perspective of a non-time-travelling outside observer, who experiences events in the outside world in a linear fashion, but views the appearances of the time-traveller (or group of time-travellers) in a non-linear fashion.

Simply put: Let's assume I am a time-traveller. I was born in 1979, grew up, and then, in 2008, I discover or way of travelling through time to the past. So I travel back to the year 1982 and spend two weeks there. Then I travel to the year 2012, spend another week there, and then return to the year 2008. I continue to live my life without any further time-travels.

Now let's view this through the eyes of someone who does not travel through time: He sees me being born in 1979. He sees me growing up. In 1982, he encounters an adult version of me while my younger self is still growing up elsewhere. After two weeks, my adult self disappears. The observer sees me grow up, then discover a way of travelling through time, and then he sees me disappear. Eventuelly he sees me reappear. Then, in 2012, he encounters a slightly younger version of me who spends a week with him. At the same time, an older version of me exists elswhwere. After my younger self disappears again, only my older self remains.

I hope this explains why Baby Juliet doesn't suddenly remember things adult Juliet did in 1977, why the island won't kill Locke when a second Locke appears on the island by means of time travel, etc.

Any more questions?

I think the easiest way to summarize the memory thing is to think about what memories actually are, they are physical things, the brain actually changes physically for each new memory, new links established in the neural nets.

The reason you can not remember something that you haven't experienced already is because your physical brain has not experienced this information first hand, so when the losties crashed on Sept 22 2004 they can't remember events they were involved in the past (their future) because their 2004 brains had not processed this information yet.

Another way to look at it is thinking about not one time line, but having a different line for every single person/object/location/planet/star

Take Jack Sun and Sawyer for example, and compare them both to the Earth's time line.

ISLAND: 1974-------1977----------------------------------------2004---2005--------2008---
JACK : .............. (3)-------------------------------------------(1)---------------------(2)
JAMES: (3)--------------------------------------------------------(1)------(2)
SUN : .................................................. ............(1)----------------------------------

They have all experienced the same amount of time since 815 crashed, but they experienced different events in space and time. If we define an event as something that happened in spacetime, and try and picture it as a grid, we can see that every event has a different spacetime coordinate. If 815 is the first event, each lostie has a line from this point, the lines are exactly the same length (3 years) and is completely straight from their perspective, but when we look at the grid, the line looks to stop and start in different times on this spacetime grid.

Excellently put, VOID. I'd say people can definitely understand it when put that way. I find it quite simple myself: people move forward in terms of their own lives, whether they're going back to the 70s, or ahead in time. They're growing older within the larger framework of time, and hence Juliet in 77 is older and knows more than Juliet in 04/05.

I think what many people don't understand is that due to time travel, the same person can exist multiple times at the same time in different places. But those different iterations of one person are not IDENTICAL. One is older, has more experience and memories the other one doesn't have YET.

In other words, when adult Sawyer travels to 1977 on the island and there's a young James Ford living in Jasper, Alabama in 1977, adult Sawyer doesn't become young James Ford. And neither does young James Ford become adult Sawyer. They are they same person at different points of their life coexisting at the same time, in different places. Adult Sawyer already has the memories of young James Ford, plus 30 years of extra life experience. Young James Ford will still have to live out these 30 years (and then travel back in time) before he will have the memories of adult Sawyer.

This is also the reason why Locke won't lose the use of his legs if he travels to 2001. It's a slightly younger Locke who lives off the island in 2001 who has lost the use of his legs. The John Locke who travels through time has already been healed by the island. He will not turn into his own younger self, and will not regain his younger self's physical flaws just because he exists at a time when his younger self had those physical flaws. Mikhail wouldn't get his eye back either if he travelled back to a time before he had lost it.

For the same reason, nobody disappeared when they travelled to 1954, when none of them had been born yet. And for the same reason, there is no problem if you die before you are born, because there is still a younger version of you who will get born, grow up, travel back in time and then die in the past.

I think what many people don't understand is that due to time travel, the same person can exist multiple times at the same time in different places. But those different iterations of one person are not IDENTICAL. One is older, has more experience and memories the other one doesn't have YET.

In other words, when adult Sawyer travels to 1977 on the island and there's a young James Ford living in Jasper, Alabama in 1977, adult Sawyer doesn't become young James Ford. And neither does young James Ford become adult Sawyer. They are they same person at different points of their life coexisting at the same time, in different places. Adult Sawyer already has the memories of young James Ford, plus 30 years of extra life experience. Young James Ford will still have to live out these 30 years (and then travel back in time) before he will have the memories of adult Sawyer.

This is also the reason why Locke won't lose the use of his legs if he travels to 2001. It's a slightly younger Locke who lives off the island in 2001 who has lost the use of his legs. The John Locke who travels through time has already been healed by the island. He will not turn into his own younger self, and will not regain his younger self's physical flaws just because he exists at a time when his younger self had those physical flaws. Mikhail wouldn't get his eye back either if he travelled back to a time before he had lost it.

For the same reason, nobody disappeared when they travelled to 1954, when none of them had been born yet. And for the same reason, there is no problem if you die before you are born, because there is still a younger version of you who will get born, grow up, travel back in time and then die in the past.

I think all of that makes sense. What I have a problem with is the "whatever happened, happened. Sayid always shot Ben" theory.

I think all of that makes sense. What I have a problem with is the "whatever happened, happened. Sayid always shot Ben" theory.

Why?

There's a Star Trek TNG episode that depicts this time travel concept brilliantly:

In a cave near San Francisco, the head of Data (the Enterprise's android) is discovered, where it had been for about 500 years..

The Enterprise crew tries to figure out the mystery, and eventually travels back to the 19th century, where Data's head ends up in that cave.

Regarding Lost, the theory is that Sayid "betraying" young Ben (by shooting him) is what turns innocent-but-unhappy young Ben into ruthless adult Ben.

Why?

There's a Star Trek TNG episode that depicts this time travel concept brilliantly:

In a cave near San Francisco, the head of Data (the Enterprise's android) is discovered, where it had been for about 500 years..

The Enterprise crew tries to figure out the mystery, and eventually travels back to the 19th century, where Data's head ends up in that cave.

Regarding Lost, the theory is that Sayid "betraying" young Ben (by shooting him) is what turns innocent-but-unhappy young Ben into ruthless adult Ben.

Well, if it was on Star Trek it has to be proven true.:undecide:
100%
The Enterprise crew tries to figure out the mystery, and eventually travels back to the 19th century, where Data's head ends up in that cave.

My thoughts are that if Data never goes back to investigate, his head will not be there for him to find. Since at the time he originally found his head he has not gone back. How did his head get there?

My thoughts are that if Data never goes back to investigate, his head will not be there for him to find. Since at the time he originally found his head he has not gone back. How did his head get there?

He had already gone there. You are thinking in a linear "cause and effect" sense.

Time travel reverses that. Effect can take place before the cause. Otherwise, time travel would not be possible according to your logic because somebody cannot appear in the past before he has decided to travel back in time.

Otherwise, time travel would not be possible according to your logic because somebody cannot appear in the past before he has decided to travel back in time.

Is time travel possible?

I think what many people don't understand is that due to time travel, the same person can exist multiple times at the same time in different places. But those different iterations of one person are not IDENTICAL. One is older, has more experience and memories the other one doesn't have YET.

In other words, when adult Sawyer travels to 1977 on the island and there's a young James Ford living in Jasper, Alabama in 1977, adult Sawyer doesn't become young James Ford. And neither does young James Ford become adult Sawyer. They are they same person at different points of their life coexisting at the same time, in different places. Adult Sawyer already has the memories of young James Ford, plus 30 years of extra life experience. Young James Ford will still have to live out these 30 years (and then travel back in time) before he will have the memories of adult Sawyer.

This is also the reason why Locke won't lose the use of his legs if he travels to 2001. It's a slightly younger Locke who lives off the island in 2001 who has lost the use of his legs. The John Locke who travels through time has already been healed by the island. He will not turn into his own younger self, and will not regain his younger self's physical flaws just because he exists at a time when his younger self had those physical flaws. Mikhail wouldn't get his eye back either if he travelled back to a time before he had lost it.

For the same reason, nobody disappeared when they travelled to 1954, when none of them had been born yet. And for the same reason, there is no problem if you die before you are born, because there is still a younger version of you who will get born, grow up, travel back in time and then die in the past.



^^^^ Possibly the best description I've read yet! I've tried to explain that to people and get this look:blink:


:D Thanks Nevermore!

Is time travel possible?

In science fiction, yes.

we shouldn't be questioning if time travel is possible. There are other much more science oriented forums for that. It IS possible on this show. That is all that should matter to us....

If you want a more scientific approach to time travel, check Closed Timelike Curves. They violate the cause and effect rule, which seems to be at the core of the many problems people have when they try to figure out time travel on the show...

In a closed loop, it's possible for event A to be the cause for event B, and event B to be the cause for event A.

we shouldn't be questioning if time travel is possible. There are other much more science oriented forums for that. It IS possible on this show. That is all that should matter to us....

If you want a more scientific approach to time travel, check Closed Timelike Curves. They violate the cause and effect rule, which seems to be at the core of the many problems people have when they try to figure out time travel on the show...

Where does Dan's revelation that he was wrong about "whatever happened happened" fit into this Closed Timeline Curves and the whole humans as variables fit in?

Ellie has "always known" she shot/maybe killed Dan even though it just happened. How has she always known?

Ellie has "always known" she shot/maybe killed Dan even though it just happened. How has she always known?

It just happened for us, in 1977. She knew that she shot Dan when she was older, in 200X. Since its always happened, when she grew up she would remember.

Ok, fair enough, but if Daniels mother knows, then (little) Ben can remember Sayid, Jack, Sawyer etc. meaning that he already knew them back in season (?) when he was captured by them...

Isn't that the whole paradox? At the moment that Ben was captured the memory of the losties wasn't up to date with the info they got from timetraveling, but in the WHH theory Ben's memory should be. OR if not, then Daniel's mother shouldn't have known it when she had her child and raised her to be the timetraveler that he needed to be.

It's if/if right? If she knew then ben knew; right?

Where does Dan's revelation that he was wrong about "whatever happened happened" fit into this Closed Timeline Curves and the whole humans as variables fit in?
Dan was lying or still twitchy. Just because Dan rattled off a bunch of nonsense about 815 landing safely doesn't make it true.

I think he was lying. I think he said that crap to get Jack to do what he is supposed to do, just like him setting Chang up to do his part earlier in the episode.

Where does Dan's revelation that he was wrong about "whatever happened happened" fit into this Closed Timeline Curves and the whole humans as variables fit in?

Changing an opinion is not always for the better. Look at Locke and pushing the button.

Daniel was clearly more crazy when he thought it's possible to change the past than he was when he thought it wasn't.

And it seems he realized his error with his dying breath. "You always knew this would happen." Indeed she did...

Ok, fair enough, but if Daniels mother knows, then (little) Ben can remember Sayid, Jack, Sawyer etc. meaning that he already knew them back in season (?) when he was captured by them...

Isn't that the whole paradox? At the moment that Ben was captured the memory of the losties wasn't up to date with the info they got from timetraveling, but in the WHH theory Ben's memory should be. OR if not, then Daniel's mother shouldn't have known it when she had her child and raised her to be the timetraveler that he needed to be.

It's if/if right? If she knew then ben knew; right?
1) Any proposition that begins with "why didn't so and so remember?" is inherently flawed. Things are too vague for it to be taken as a definite fact. Ben could of remembered the TT'ing losties and it still plays well in my opinion. Think back to the sly look Ben gave Sayid after Jack pulled Sayid off Ben during the initial interogation.

2) It's still undefined exactly how much of young Ben's memory has been affected by the temple trip. It's sort of interesting that young Ben still isn't back to Dharmaville. Perhaps he won't make it back until the losties are flashed away again.