So, what do we think? I really don't know which conclusion to jump to :shrug:

We've seen this sort of thing before, i.e. Locke, Little Ben.
He was most certainly shot center mass.
My first impression is that this one may stick......or maybe another visit to the temple?

it certainly appears that way
I really hope not though, Dan is a pivotal character, and I really like him

that, and it would mean that the ComicCon video is non-canon

He is definitely dead. That is what Hawking was talking about in the "future". When she slaps Widmore. She knew that she sent Dan back in order to be shot and killed by her, thus preventing him from stopping the Incident.

I'd still like to know WHY she wants the Incident to happen though

sadly, yes. :-(

There's always a chance that undoing the things that have been done will cause much of what we know to change in the final season--of course we won't know until the final season. I think it is building to a changing of the future with a retaining of the memories...but I don't know...

He is definitely dead. That is what Hawking was talking about in the "future". When she slaps Widmore. She knew that she sent Dan back in order to be shot and killed by her, thus preventing him from stopping the Incident.

Yep, I agree LL. It seems that she slapped Widmore because he was saying that he "sacrificed" his relationship with Penny, and then Hawking slapped him because she sacrificed Dan to the Island and knew that she would kill him. I really think he is dead, but there's always the possibility that somehow he survives. This is LOST by the way.:biggrin:

it certainly appears that way
I really hope not though, Dan is a pivotal character, and I really like him

that, and it would mean that the ComicCon video is non-canon

i thought that it was always viewed as being non-canon?

Why doesn't she just let him stay home playing the piano, then? That wouldn't stop the Incident either. Of course, she works for the "you can't change fate" brigade so I guess she had to nudge him back to be shot just the way she nudged Des into not buying Penny a ring.

Cardie

In this case I think dead is dead. Dan's story has come full circle.

I wonder where Little Dan was in that scene where Hawking shot him....

The notion of a mother killing a future version of her own son in the past... That's pretty crazy. I think the notion that Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore isn't that unfeasible now.

In fact, after this episode, I'm more convinced than ever that Des and Penny are Adam and Eve.... Des' "I said I will never leave you" comment sealed if for me.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Des and Penny die in the past, The Others find little Charlie, they lay Des and Penny to rest in the caves, and Charlie joins them as Charles Widmore?

it certainly appears that way
I really hope not though, Dan is a pivotal character, and I really like him

that, and it would mean that the ComicCon video is non-canon

That would be strange wouldn't it? Considering that The Orchid video was also released at Comic Con, and it definitely played a role in the show. Maybe the 2008 Chang video will come into play, but Dan's just no the one doing the talking on the video like was speculated.:shrug:

I wish I knew.. it seems that every time I have a theory a new epi airs and it's blown right out of the water!!! So, We know Dan was going to use the H bomb is it possible that they burried the H bomb near the statue and perhaps Jacko is going to trigger it now that Dan's gonzo and thats how the statue blows? We know the statue winds up a 4 toe'd foot, and the swan is cemented like Chernoble.. I have to say I love that Dan used the term as Sayid did in S 2 ... Speaking of which where is Sayid?????

I'd still like to know WHY she wants the Incident to happen though

That is *the* question. Tying it into her "guidance" of Desmond, it would seem that the entire chain of events was designed to ensure that Oceanic Flight 815 would crash, thereby ensuring certain people would end up on the Island. In other words, I don't think we've seen the endgame yet. Perhaps it involves Locke or Jack.

In this case I think dead is dead. Dan's story has come full circle.

I wonder where Little Dan was in that scene where Hawking shot him....

The notion of a mother killing a future version of her own son in the past... That's pretty crazy. I think the notion that Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore isn't that unfeasible now.

In fact, after this episode, I'm more convinced than ever that Des and Penny are Adam and Eve.... Des' "I said I will never leave you" comment sealed if for me.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Des and Penny die in the past, The Others find little Charlie, they lay Des and Penny to rest in the caves, and Charlie joins them as Charles Widmore?

I think you may be right about this. . .

Also, "The notion of a mother killing a future version of her own son in the past", while crazy, would not create a paradox since it was future Faraday's present when he got shot (and Hawking's past. . .so she knew all those years afterwards she'd be eventually sending her son back to 1977 to be shot by her--now that's crazy)

In this case I think dead is dead. Dan's story has come full circle.

I wonder where Little Dan was in that scene where Hawking shot him....

The notion of a mother killing a future version of her own son in the past... That's pretty crazy. I think the notion that Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore isn't that unfeasible now.

In fact, after this episode, I'm more convinced than ever that Des and Penny are Adam and Eve.... Des' "I said I will never leave you" comment sealed if for me.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Des and Penny die in the past, The Others find little Charlie, they lay Des and Penny to rest in the caves, and Charlie joins thm as Charles Widmore?


That would be cool.. maybe we should start looking out for a black and white stones!!
For that to happen though the 3 of them need to tt back to 1933 and then loose little charlie to the others then tt to 1954 and then die because it took the clothes about 50 years in 04 to dissinigrate like that.
So we know Widmore was a horndog he had Dan with Eloise on the island, and he was leaving the island to see Penny's mom dirty dog he is!! What irks me is that Dan didnt' know who his father was. I loved the whole Miles is your son thing.. Chang was ready to buy into it until Miles said no he's crazy!!!!

I wonder if Eloise was expecting at the time older Faraday dropped the bombshell that he was her son? The timeframe would be right. The look on Eloise's face is one of shock since she hadn't revealed that news to anyone else.

re: the comicon video- maybe we didn't get to see all of what Daniel did upon his return to the island.. i mean they do leave things out and show you later...

re: the comicon video- maybe we didn't get to see all of what Daniel did upon his return to the island.. i mean they do leave things out and show you later...

Except that in this episode, Daniel had to remind Chang who he was and was trying to convince him that he was from the future. In the video, Faraday calls him Pierre, as though they're well acquainted. Also, Chang lists off things he knows about the future and says "this information comes to me from a source that has proven himself to be credible".

Dan sure looked dead, but I'd like to believe that the Comic-Con video is canon and that it's still yet to happen.

Just wait til next week... It will be apparent that Dan was shot through the shoulder, he'll rest for a couple of hours, and then he'll be right as rain.

That is *the* question. Tying it into her "guidance" of Desmond, it would seem that the entire chain of events was designed to ensure that Oceanic Flight 815 would crash, thereby ensuring certain people would end up on the Island. In other words, I don't think we've seen the endgame yet. Perhaps it involves Locke or Jack.

I like this idea. It's like we're seeing all this set-up involving the background players - Widmore, Eloise, etc - leading to some big event that'll play out next season. I'm hoping next year we get some pay-off that more directly involves our original characters!

Why doesn't she just let him stay home playing the piano, then? That wouldn't stop the Incident either. Of course, she works for the "you can't change fate" brigade so I guess she had to nudge him back to be shot just the way she nudged Des into not buying Penny a ring.

Cardie

Right before she tells him to stop playing the piano, she seems upset by soemthing. I bet Jacob pays her a visit and tells her she can't try to keep him from the island/her shooting him.

So, what do we think? I really don't know which conclusion to jump to :shrug:

We've seen this sort of thing before, i.e. Locke, Little Ben.
He was most certainly shot center mass.
My first impression is that this one may stick......or maybe another visit to the temple?
I think he's really dead! The dramatic ending and the way the whole episode hinted that was coming...

Hawking seems pretty convinced that her "work" is for the greater good. Is she getting played at well?

That is *the* question. Tying it into her "guidance" of Desmond, it would seem that the entire chain of events was designed to ensure that Oceanic Flight 815 would crash, thereby ensuring certain people would end up on the Island. In other words, I don't think we've seen the endgame yet. Perhaps it involves Locke or Jack.
I agree and the endgame will be the "War" that Widmore referred to when talking with Locke....it will happen in present time on the Island.

To answer the OP, yes he is dead. I took it to mean that truly, whatever happened, happened. Daniel had to die because he had already died in the past. Same as what Daniel said before he told Charlotte to not ever come back to the island. He said that he tried to avoid telling her that, but couldn't. Whatever happened, happened.

To answer the OP, yes he is dead. I took it to mean that truly, whatever happened, happened. Daniel had to die because he had already died in the past. Same as what Daniel said before he told Charlotte to not ever come back to the island. He said that he tried to avoid telling her that, but couldn't. Whatever happened, happened.

All of this puts Abaddon's emphatic request to Naomi to bring the Freighter team back alive in focus. Thie spisode proved to me that Hawking and Widmore are not on the same side.

Why doesn't she just let him stay home playing the piano, then? That wouldn't stop the Incident either. Of course, she works for the "you can't change fate" brigade so I guess she had to nudge him back to be shot just the way she nudged Des into not buying Penny a ring.

Cardie

good point
if all she wanted was everything to happen on it's course, than why bother steering Dan in the direction that he would even goto the island?
If he is just going to be killed in the end and not affect any sort of change, then she might as well have just let him become a pianist.

good point
if all she wanted was everything to happen on it's course, than why bother steering Dan in the direction that he would even goto the island?
If he is just going to be killed in the end and not affect any sort of change, then she might as well have just let him become a pianist.

Except her hand is being forced. Someone is pulling her strings just like she's pulling others.

I'd still like to know WHY she wants the Incident to happen though
Perhaps to keep the island special? Daniel blowing up the electromagnetic pocket of high energy might end it.

No, 'cause he's yet to film the Comic Con video, which far as I know is canon.

No, 'cause he's yet to film the Comic Con video, which far as I know is canon.

No one will know if its canon until it appears in the next two episodes.

Well, the Island won't let a character die unless It chooses to let that character die, so if Dan's work is done, he's worm food. IF there is more that he needs to do, the Temple is close and Richard knows where the door is (and doesn't have to go under the wall a la Ben).

Dan's whole reason for leaving Ann Arbor and returning to the Island was because of his love for Charlotte--he switched the focus of his research from the Constant to the Variable SO THAT he could find a way to keep Charlotte from dying. His speech to Little Charlotte showed just how much he wanted to change the past so that his future (well, really his past in this case) would allow for HIS choice about who lives and who dies. In a way, Dan is trying to play Puppet Master pulling the strings of Fate--which is what the Island's job is--and if I've got to vote for dead or alive, I'd go with dead since trying to play god/Island is probably not a wise idea.

Unless we find out that the this whole Flight 815 business has been FROM THE BEGINNING the Island's way of course correcting ITS OWN FATE.

There's always a chance that undoing the things that have been done will cause much of what we know to change in the final season--of course we won't know until the final season. I think it is building to a changing of the future with a retaining of the memories...but I don't know...

They would never do that. It would take all the meaning out of everything we've seen, as it no longer would have actually happened. Dan had it right the first time; whatever happened happened. If Daniel could stop the incident from ever happening, that would be a by-the-book time paradox, as then he could never have been there to prevent the incident from happening. They're going to try, and they're going to fail, and the incident is going to happen.

Why doesn't she just let him stay home playing the piano, then? That wouldn't stop the Incident either. Of course, she works for the "you can't change fate" brigade so I guess she had to nudge him back to be shot just the way she nudged Des into not buying Penny a ring.
It seems that she has taken it upon herself to guide people into doing the things that she knows are going to happen in the future. I'm just realizing now that all the things she knew about what would happen in the future, she got from Daniel's notebook after she shot him. It had contained everything she told Desmond would happen in 1996. The question, for me, is why does she think she has to make the future unfold the way it unfolds? Why does she think she has to take an active role? What's with the "God help us all" line, if it doesn't happen the way it did/will happen?

To answer the OP, yes he is dead. I took it to mean that truly, whatever happened, happened. Daniel had to die because he had already died in the past. Same as what Daniel said before he told Charlotte to not ever come back to the island. He said that he tried to avoid telling her that, but couldn't. Whatever happened, happened.

That was great irony, by convincing himself that he could change the past, he decided to go ahead and tell her, though he had been determined not to, thus illustrating how he cannot change the past.

if all she wanted was everything to happen on it's course, than why bother steering Dan in the direction that he would even goto the island?
If he is just going to be killed in the end and not affect any sort of change, then she might as well have just let him become a pianist.
I don't think it has anything to do specifically with the incident. It seems more that she's determined to make sure that everything in the future plays out the way Daniel had experienced the future, including him getting shot. It almost seems as though she's trying to avoid temporal paradox from taking place due to her having knowledge of the future by overcompensating, and intentionally leading things in the direction where she knows they do lead. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would seem that it's simply inevitable, like Daniel said in the first place. Even if she had tried to change it, she would fail.

And to answer the question. Yes, I definitely think he's dead. (But then again, I didn't think Charles was his father, so don't listen to me.) And I think the ComicCon video and the present-day revival of Dharma was therefore a non-canon alternate version of events for purposes of the ARG.

I think Eloise didn't make the wrong choice by sending the oceanic 6 back to the Island, I believe that's what she meant when she told Desmond "I am helping him" when he told her Daniel needed her help.

I think she is hoping that the O6 (headed by Jack) can go back to the Island and change the "variables" so that Daniel can live. In the original time-line, Faraday went to the hostiles alone and died after getting shot by his mother. Maybe in the new time-line Jack will revive Daniel or he and Kate will convince the hostiles that he really is Eloise's son and they will take him to the temple.

I don't know if anybody else said it already or noticed it, but right before Ellie slaps Widmore, he said..

'He WAS my son, too.'

It seems to me that he already assumed that he'd be dead by now in the past of 77, since he might have also been around when Ellie shot her own son...

The notion of a mother killing a future version of her own son in the past... That's pretty crazy. I think the notion that Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore isn't that unfeasible now.

In fact, after this episode, I'm more convinced than ever that Des and Penny are Adam and Eve.... Des' "I said I will never leave you" comment sealed if for me.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Des and Penny die in the past, The Others find little Charlie, they lay Des and Penny to rest in the caves, and Charlie joins them as Charles Widmore?
I really don't think that will happen. Eloise told Penny she doesn't know if Desmond will live because this is the first time in a long time that she doesn't know what is going to happen. If they did travel to the past then Eloise would know that Desmond lived.
Except that in this episode, Daniel had to remind Chang who he was and was trying to convince him that he was from the future. In the video, Faraday calls him Pierre, as though they're well acquainted. Also, Chang lists off things he knows about the future and says "this information comes to me from a source that has proven himself to be credible".

Didn't Chang answer him that he knew who he was?
To answer the OP, yes he is dead. I took it to mean that truly, whatever happened, happened. Daniel had to die because he had already died in the past. Same as what Daniel said before he told Charlotte to not ever come back to the island. He said that he tried to avoid telling her that, but couldn't. Whatever happened, happened.
We know that Daniel talked to young Charlotte in the past because that was older Charlotte's past, we saw a future where older Charlotte said that Daniel spoke to young Charlotte so it had to happen. In 2004 Daniel was 34? and he traveled to the past to 1974 but he was still 34? he hadn't talked to young Charlotte yet. Then in 1977 Daniel is 37? and he talks to young CHarlotte. So when Daniel speaks to young Charlotte in 1977 that is Daniel's present.

This is Daniel's present we have not seen a future where older Daniel is said to be dead or alive so we don't know if older Daniel dies or lives. Eloise never said to anyone that she sent her son older Daniel back to the Island and she shot and killed him. We have no proof that older Daniel lives or dies.

Eloise couldn't have shot and killed young Daniel in the past in 1977 because we saw a future where older Daniel is alive but she can shoot older Daniel in 1977.
Does that make sense?

Why doesn't she just let him stay home playing the piano, then? That wouldn't stop the Incident either. Of course, she works for the "you can't change fate" brigade so I guess she had to nudge him back to be shot just the way she nudged Des into not buying Penny a ring.

Cardie

I don't see the point either, unless Dan is supposed to do something else while he's on the island...

That is *the* question. Tying it into her "guidance" of Desmond, it would seem that the entire chain of events was designed to ensure that Oceanic Flight 815 would crash, thereby ensuring certain people would end up on the Island. In other words, I don't think we've seen the endgame yet. Perhaps it involves Locke or Jack.

This makes some sense of it...

Except her hand is being forced. Someone is pulling her strings just like she's pulling others.

Maybe this enters in as well...

They would never do that. It would take all the meaning out of everything we've seen, as it no longer would have actually happened. Dan had it right the first time; whatever happened happened. If Daniel could stop the incident from ever happening, that would be a by-the-book time paradox, as then he could never have been there to prevent the incident from happening. They're going to try, and they're going to fail, and the incident is going to happen.

...

I don't think it has anything to do specifically with the incident. It seems more that she's determined to make sure that everything in the future plays out the way Daniel had experienced the future, including him getting shot. It almost seems as though she's trying to avoid temporal paradox from taking place due to her having knowledge of the future by overcompensating, and intentionally leading things in the direction where she knows they do lead. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would seem that it's simply inevitable, like Daniel said in the first place. Even if she had tried to change it, she would fail.

And to answer the question. Yes, I definitely think he's dead. (But then again, I didn't think Charles was his father, so don't listen to me.) And I think the ComicCon video and the present-day revival of Dharma was therefore a non-canon alternate version of events for purposes of the ARG.

Agree that preventing the Incident would cause a paradox. Agree that it s hard to make sense of Hawking's determination to over-determine events that, to hear her talk, are destined to happen anyway.

Not sure I agree about the Comic Con video being noncanonical. Damen and Carlton were there, which to me makes it kinda not kosher to present something that isn't canon.

I hope he is not dead. She would not have sent him back to kill him. She was sending him back so the island can heal him so why would she send him back if she knew she was going to kill him.

Also, I think they have to resurrect him somehow. He is one of my favorite characters, but TPTB don't call me and ask.

Remember Jin didn't die. I kept hoping and he didn't so lets hope Daniel is taken into the Temple or the Island heals him like Locke or it went through and didn't touch a vital organ!
100%
This is really bothering me. I went back and read all the "yes dead" people. I am a NO DEAD DANIEL person. Jack is going to run in and save him or the island or temple. But he will not be healthy enough to do anything to find the bomb and change anything. DANIEL IS ALIVE!

I'm leaning towards Daniel being dead, and the fact that the Comi-Con video was not exactly canon, mostly because the look Eloise had on her face when convincing Daniel to to the Island. She had a look of deep regret and "how can I do this?".

I write this now so my scrambled brain will not forget it by morning when I look at the blank screen.

1. Daniel got off the sub as a "newbie" and encountered Jim, Jack, Juliet, Miles, a very quiet Hugo and others in Dharma outfits in 1977. [Hope I'm correct, so far].

2. He was armed with his trusty notebook; observed the drilling and sensed the imminent danger, seeing past, present and future is some god-lke grasp of the universal context and consequences. From the time he left the sub, through his confused reunion with Flight 815 alims; warning Chang and telling Chang of his parentage of Miles, to his encounter with young Charlotte, to his insisting on seeing Ellie in the Others' camp, covered a time span, for me, as I watched it, of a few hours.

3. Meanwhile, in flashes back and forth, we see that Daniel's brains got fried during his first Widmore employment, apparently subjecting himself to time travel experiments beyond Eloise the lab rat. Thus we had the youngest recruit ever taken from Oxford in a special grant from Widmore.

4. The Island, it is suggested, will provide a healing for Danile's broken mind, sacrificed for science at his mother's insistence.

5. We have been made to believe that Daniel came back to the Island via sub, from Ann Arbor, MI, home of the DeGroots. I hope this is not old age creeping up on me; but, to date, I last saw Daniel on the Island, holding the dying Charlotte in his arms, as a grown-up, after the freighter and before the return of the Losties in 2007-8.

6. Desmond encountered Daniel at Oxford around 1995, so there are Daniel Faraday birth certificates, school records, scholarship records, employment records, and quite probably, some extensive, if private medical [mental] records both of achievements and a tragic meltdown. Plus there is/was a significant other, putting a very findable Daniel Faraday on the map, at least as late as 1995 through 2005.

7. IF his mother, Eloise, shot and killed him before he was born, we have inescapable paradox. If we get a revelation that he was born off the Island and before the incident, then how did he get back to her camp without any form] without her knowing it.

I am convinced that Widmore and Eloise are Faraday's parents and that Daniel and Penelope are at least half-siblings. IF Daniel is dead, who can defuse the incident about to happen devastatingly in 1977. The absolute anguish on Daniel's face made it seem as if the cataclysm four hours away would be so devastating, that an H-Bomb detonation might be catalyst enough to somehow contain it.

I'm hanging in there; but the cliff hangers are getting a bit ragged, like reruns of The Perils of Pauline.

Daniel had been with the others...Juliet, Sawyer, Jin, Miles, etc. and left the island in the sub and just returned...I think.

That's pretty crazy. I think the notion that Charlie Hume = Charles Widmore isn't that unfeasible now.

In fact, after this episode, I'm more convinced than ever that Des and Penny are Adam and Eve.... Des' "I said I will never leave you" comment sealed if for me.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Des and Penny die in the past, The Others find little Charlie, they lay Des and Penny to rest in the caves, and Charlie joins them as Charles Widmore?

As nutty and disturbing as it is to give birth to your own father, I have to agree that it kind of fits together. That would mean that both Charles and Penny come from the genetic input of just two people, Desmond, and Penny's Mom. Solving the recursive equation, (recursive since Penny is her own grandmother, and Charles is his own grandfather), it also means that 1/3 of Penny's DNA is from Desmond (2/3 from her mom), and 1/3 of Charles's DNA is from Penny's Mom (and 2/3 from Desmond). That would seem to make it almost inevitable that there would be some genetic deformity in both Charles and Penny. In conclusion, Charles has only four toes, and is depicted in the statue. You heard it here first.

and I hope I heard it here last - hypotenuse I say.

for whatever reason I feel the need to go against popular opinion and vote, "no." He's not dead (and I think I'm probably wrong) but I just can't wrap my head around this being his fate. Why did it all need to happen like that? On the other hand, Dan going against everything he believed, going out in a blaze of glory for the woman he loved, seems, a little too like this show to not be true.

7. IF his mother, Eloise, shot and killed him before he was born, we have inescapable paradox. If we get a revelation that he was born off the Island and before the incident, then how did he get back to her camp without any form] without her knowing it.



There is no paradox. The whole episode revolved around a cold and hard Eloise, knowing that, some day, she needs to send her son off to an island where SHE (in the past) kills him. She found that out in 1977 and went on through life (whether or not Dan was born yet) knowing that she had to sacrifice her son so whatever comes next can happen. Dan's timeline is different from his mother's timeline. As he explained to Jack, any of them can die cause '77 is their present.

I wonder if Daniel having written "If anything goes wrong, Desmond Hume will be my constant." has any relevance still.

I write this now so my scrambled brain will not forget it by morning when I look at the blank screen.

1. Daniel got off the sub as a "newbie" and encountered Jim, Jack, Juliet, Miles, a very quiet Hugo and others in Dharma outfits in 1977. [Hope I'm correct, so far].

Daniel flashed with the Time traveling Losties to 1974. He saw young Charlotte but did not speak to her. At some point, possibly two weeks after they flashed to 1974, he left the Island on the sub and went to Ann Arbor. He has been working in Ann Arbor since 1974. He just returned from Ann Arbor via the sub in 1977 and that is when he speks to young Charlotte..

7. IF his mother, Eloise, shot and killed him before he was born, we have inescapable paradox. If we get a revelation that he was born off the Island and before the incident, then how did he get back to her camp without any form] without her knowing it.

Eloise did not shoot the younger Daniel, if she had shot the younger Daniel then there would be no older Daniel. She shot the older Daniel who had already completed all of his schooling and work.

Young Daniel is probably already born possibly living on the Island but maybe living off of the Island.

I really don't think that will happen. Eloise told Penny she doesn't know if Desmond will live because this is the first time in a long time that she doesn't know what is going to happen. If they did travel to the past then Eloise would know that Desmond lived.

Since Richard was incredulous of the notion of time travel, if that did happen, the Others wouldn't be aware that they were from the future. Eloise might not have noticed yet how Desmond and Penny look an awful lot like younger versions of what Charles' parents looked like in 1954.

I wonder if Daniel having written "If anything goes wrong, Desmond Hume will be my constant." has any relevance still.
Good point! I bet it must still be relevant.

Since Des has some special thing about him, I wonder if a constant can also be a variable.

Since Richard was incredulous of the notion of time travel, if that did happen, the Others wouldn't be aware that they were from the future. Eloise might not have noticed yet how Desmond and Penny look an awful lot like younger versions of what Charles' parents looked like in 1954.
I don't think Desmond would ever change his last name to Widmore.

I don't think ABC would ever permit this kind of incest to occur.

Cardie

Daniel IS definately dead

Sadly I think Daniel is dead as well. Not as shocking as Charlies death but I liked Faraday . Didn't the spoilers say the upcoming death would be a real death? I assume this was it.

There is no paradox. The whole episode revolved around a cold and hard Eloise, knowing that, some day, she needs to send her son off to an island where SHE (in the past) kills him. She found that out in 1977 and went on through life (whether or not Dan was born yet) knowing that she had to sacrifice her son so whatever comes next can happen. Dan's timeline is different from his mother's timeline. As he explained to Jack, any of them can die cause '77 is their present.

Let's just be sure that we're on the same page as far as terms and referents are concerned, regarding: paradox:

n.


A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
A statement contrary to received opinion.

Paradox, a statement or expression so surprisingly self‐contradictory as to provoke us into seeking another sense or context in which it would be true (although some paradoxes cannot be resolved into truths, remaining flatly self‐contradictory, e.g. Everything I say is a lie). [Here, paradox is treated in the grammatic sense of figure of speech; rhetorical device, or nuanced semantic tool.

… Apparently self-contradictory statement whose underlying meaning is revealed only by careful scrutiny. … A paradox arises when a set of apparently incontrovertible premises gives unacceptable or contradictory conclusions. To solve a paradox will involve either showing that there is a hidden flaw in the premises, or that the reasoning is erroneous, or that the apparently unacceptable conclusion can, in fact, be tolerated. Paradoxes are therefore important in philosophy, for until one is solved it shows that there is something about our reasonings and our concepts that we do not understand. .

In the context of [I]Lost, with particular focus on time travel, we have what is called in physics and mathematics a causality violation. This is the sense in which I used the word paradox.

1.[Speaking of Minkowskian spacetime causality structure as applied to the more intricately involved Einstein model]: “An extreme situation arises when we have what is referred to as a causality violation in which ‘closed timelike curves’ can occur, and it becomes possible for a signal to be sent from some event into the past of that same event!Such situations are normally ruled out as ‘unphysical …” p.408-9.

2.Time travel, as presented on Lost, depends upon wormholesthrough which time travelers can gain passage forward or backward in time. This concept rests largely on black hole theories with a dual white hole nature, which permits escape to external universes. [From same quoted source]: “In fact, it is not possible for a physical observer actually “to pass” from E to E1, as that would involve a ‘world line’ that is not timelike everywhere.” [pp. 833-4].

So, yes, we do have a paradox on several levels [cosmological, physical & mathematical]:

1.The David Faraday time travel to 1974 or 1977 or any such time frame from 1995 through 2007, is a causality violation paradox;

2.The Daniel Faraday killing in 1977 by his mother violates ontological principles of cause and effect and epistemological principles of limitations of reasoned human knowledge;



Quoted source: The Road to Reality; Roger Penrose; 2004; Borzoi; Knopf; 1,099 pp.

Let's just be sure that we're on the same page as far as terms and referents are concerned, regarding: paradox:



In the context of Lost, with particular focus on time travel, we have what is called in physics and mathematics a causality violation. This is the sense in which I used the word paradox.

1.[Speaking of Minkowskian spacetime causality structure as applied to the more intricately involved Einstein model]: “An extreme situation arises when we have what is referred to as a causality violation in which ‘closed timelike curves’ can occur, and it becomes possible for a signal to be sent from some event into the past of that same event!Such situations are normally ruled out as ‘unphysical …” p.408-9.

2.Time travel, as presented on Lost, depends upon wormholesthrough which time travelers can gain passage forward or backward in time. This concept rests largely on black hole theories with a dual white hole nature, which permits escape to external universes. [From same quoted source]: “In fact, it is not possible for a physical observer actually “to pass” from E to E1, as that would involve a ‘world line’ that is not timelike everywhere.” [pp. 833-4].

So, yes, we do have a paradox on several levels [cosmological, physical & mathematical]:

1.The David Faraday time travel to 1974 or 1977 or any such time frame from 1995 through 2007, is a causality violation paradox;

2.The Daniel Faraday killing in 1977 by his mother violates ontological principles of cause and effect and epistemological principles of limitations of reasoned human knowledge;



Quoted source: [I]The Road to Reality; Roger Penrose; 2004; Borzoi; Knopf; 1,099 pp.

I think you are confused.

Eloise killing older Daniel before younger Daniel was born would not cause a paradox.

If Daniel killed Eloise before he was born that is what would cause a paradox.

However I do believe that Daniel is already born.

Older Daniel killing younger Daniel would also cause a paradox

I like this idea. It's like we're seeing all this set-up involving the background players - Widmore, Eloise, etc - leading to some big event that'll play out next season. I'm hoping next year we get some pay-off that more directly involves our original characters!


and don't forget Jacob!

Yeah, he's dead. You can't bring everyone back to life, it would be lame.

Didn't Chang answer him that he knew who he was?

Yes, but he said something along the lines of "right, you arrived with LeFleur", not "oh yeah, we sent that video into the future together".

I don't think ABC would ever permit this kind of incest to occur.

Cardie

Not to mention it would be impossible to father yourself (Even generationally removed) through any natural means, any offspring would obviously be a mix of both parents. It would be possible through cloning, but I really doubt Des took one of Charles' stem cells, inserted it in an egg and then put it inside Penny, it's a ridiculous proposition.
100%
Yes, but he said something along the lines of "right, you arrived with LeFleur", not "oh yeah, we sent that video into the future together".

Yeah, if Daniel was behind the camera, how can he be dead now???...

He might live long enough next episode to find Chang and send the video.

Let's just be sure that we're on the same page as far as terms and referents are concerned, regarding: paradox:



In the context of [I]Lost, with particular focus on time travel, we have what is called in physics and mathematics a causality violation. This is the sense in which I used the word paradox.

1.[Speaking of Minkowskian spacetime causality structure as applied to the more intricately involved Einstein model]: “An extreme situation arises when we have what is referred to as a causality violation in which ‘closed timelike curves’ can occur, and it becomes possible for a signal to be sent from some event into the past of that same event!Such situations are normally ruled out as ‘unphysical …” p.408-9.

2.Time travel, as presented on Lost, depends upon wormholesthrough which time travelers can gain passage forward or backward in time. This concept rests largely on black hole theories with a dual white hole nature, which permits escape to external universes. [From same quoted source]: “In fact, it is not possible for a physical observer actually “to pass” from E to E1, as that would involve a ‘world line’ that is not timelike everywhere.” [pp. 833-4].

So, yes, we do have a paradox on several levels [cosmological, physical & mathematical]:

1.The David Faraday time travel to 1974 or 1977 or any such time frame from 1995 through 2007, is a causality violation paradox;

2.The Daniel Faraday killing in 1977 by his mother violates ontological principles of cause and effect and epistemological principles of limitations of reasoned human knowledge;



Quoted source: The Road to Reality; Roger Penrose; 2004; Borzoi; Knopf; 1,099 pp.

I understand that, but there is still no paradox. You're talking about causality, when, in essence, the type of universe that Lost prescribes to thinks of causality as a culturally defined concept, since it is the only limited way we can see the world. I wrote this in my blog a while back concerning Lost's use of timespace:

"Imaginary time" is a concept Hawking coined in an attempt to resolve the fundamental question of what existed before the Big Bang. While "imaginary time" remains a relatively simple concept, it is rather difficult to visualize. Hawking distinguished "imaginary time" from what he calls "regular time", or the causal linear construct of how we see our world unfolding (i.e. we forget to turn on the alarm clock and we wake up late the next morning because of that; causality leads to progression in time). In order to more clearly understand this, visualize "regular time" on an X-axis, or a horizontal line, with the left side of the map labeled "past" and the other side labeled "future", all while "imaginary time" would run perpendicular to "regular time", moving at right angles. "Imaginary time" isn't any different from "regular time", it just runs in a contrasting course, dissimilar from the way we usually experience and go through time.

In essence, what Hawking was trying to do was look at time as if it was a dimension of space, meaning that time is not just a human construct defined by cultural semantics, but is actually occupying space, much like how the bed you sleep on, the desk you work on, and the dishes you never clean that lay on top of your book shelf take up space. This construct of time as a spatially occupying space allows you to move back and forth, forward and backward, beside "imaginary time", just like how you can move back and forth in space.

So since Dan has been one of the lucky few to gain access to traveling between time and space (much like how we can go from Los Angeles to New York fairly easy), time is all relative; meaning that 1974 and 2008 are just points on a map and have no linear connection to each other (in Dan's new perception). In fact, don't think about the dates. Think about it as an order of events:

1. Dan is born
2. Dan plays piano. Mother says no.
3. Dan graduates college.
4. Dan goes crazy. Widmore visits dan.
5. Dan goes on the island, falls in love with Charlotte.
6. Dan is on the zodiac when the island skips.
7. Dan lands and stays in 1974.
8. Dan leaves to Ann Arbour for research
9. Dan returns and is murdered by his mother.

I don't think ABC would ever permit this kind of incest to occur.

Cardie

Totally with you, Cardielost. I will be severely disappointed if Charlie Hume, the statue, or Jacob are anyone familiar. It's too over-the-top, even for Lost.

Resurrection and Dan not being dead, though... that's another story altogether! Dan's not dead. He's just fallen victim to the classic Lost cliffhanger. I'm positive that Dan is heavily involved in the incident (causing it and containing it). The infamous numbers that are put into the computer... I think those are Dan's creation. Because the numbers are put into the computer as a function. Which means that the computer operates ( or I should say operated)on an equation. An equation which Dan made. :biggrin: Just an idea...

I think he is dead. If not, I'm not watching any more. I'm kind of tired from people 'rising' from the dead. It's becoming boring.

I understand that, but there is still no paradox. You're talking about causality, when, in essence, the type of universe that Lost prescribes to thinks of causality as a culturally defined concept, since it is the only limited way we can see the world. I wrote this in my blog a while back concerning Lost's use of timespace:

You beg the question when you remove "causality" as relevant to any consideration of paradox in a Lost conception of reality.

"Imaginary time" is a concept Hawking coined in an attempt to resolve the fundamental question of what existed before the Big Bang. While "imaginary time" remains a relatively simple concept, it is rather difficult to visualize. Hawking distinguished "imaginary time" from what he calls "regular time", or the causal linear construct of how we see our world unfolding (i.e. we forget to turn on the alarm clock and we wake up late the next morning because of that; causality leads to progression in time). In order to more clearly understand this, visualize "regular time" on an X-axis, or a horizontal line, with the left side of the map labeled "past" and the other side labeled "future", all while "imaginary time" would run perpendicular to "regular time", moving at right angles. "Imaginary time" isn't any different from "regular time", it just runs in a contrasting course, dissimilar from the way we usually experience and go through time.[[quote]

You paraphrase Hawking. addressing a topic not under discussion: what happened before the Big Bang? The presentation given in the paraphrase is very suggestive of the bundles or fibre bundles or vector bundles, kinds of attendant manifolds suspended over every point in other manifolds. The concept of trivial bundles [cyllindrical] and twisted bundles [Mobius strips] are samples of projected dimensions in curved spacetime.

[quote]So since Dan has been one of the lucky few to gain access to traveling between time and space (much like how we can go from Los Angeles to New York fairly easy), time is all relative; meaning that 1974 and 2008 are just points on a map and have no linear connection to each other (in Dan's new perception). In fact, don't think about the dates. Think about it as an order of events:

1. Dan is born
2. Dan plays piano. Mother says no.
3. Dan graduates college.
4. Dan goes crazy. Widmore visits dan.
5. Dan goes on the island, falls in love with Charlotte.
6. Dan is on the zodiac when the island skips.
7. Dan lands and stays in 1974.
8. Dan leaves to Ann Arbour for research
9. Dan returns and is murdered by his mother.Dan returns and is murdered by his young mother, who will live a linear existence into the 21st Century.

I have no argument with your right to go along with the format we've been given. I am just a bit useasy with the unnecessarily complex facility of it all.

As I see it, you are observing a killing in 1977, which would off one Daniel Faraday. The creative device of time travel on Lost, given all free reign, does not obliterate the causality violation that each of us, regardless of any dualities or other multiplicities - pick a number - in our complex human nature[s], has a singular physical identity. That singular identity, destroyed at a point in time prior to that individual's major accomplishments, erases the accomplishments.

In reality theory, there is a definite paradox. In Rod Serling metaphysics, I agree, there is no paradox.

I am still an avid Lost fan; but after last night's episode, I look forward to The Fringe even a bit more than I do the next episode of Lost. At least with The Fringe, I still have Matthew Abaddon; and I kow what I'm in for: Night Stalker on steroids.

i don't know if he'll be alive like locke or whatever, but in the ending, he was dead. eyes glazed over. the final shot. too obvious.

You beg the question when you remove "causality" as relevant to any consideration of paradox is a Lost conception of reality.

[quote]"Imaginary time" is a concept Hawking coined in an attempt to resolve the fundamental question of what existed before the Big Bang. While "imaginary time" remains a relatively simple concept, it is rather difficult to visualize. Hawking distinguished "imaginary time" from what he calls "regular time", or the causal linear construct of how we see our world unfolding (i.e. we forget to turn on the alarm clock and we wake up late the next morning because of that; causality leads to progression in time). In order to more clearly understand this, visualize "regular time" on an X-axis, or a horizontal line, with the left side of the map labeled "past" and the other side labeled "future", all while "imaginary time" would run perpendicular to "regular time", moving at right angles. "Imaginary time" isn't any different from "regular time", it just runs in a contrasting course, dissimilar from the way we usually experience and go through time.[[quote]

You paraphrase Hawking. addressing a topic not under discussion: what happened before the Big Bang? The presentation given in the paraphrase is very suggestive of the bundles or fibre bundles or vector bundles, kinds of attendant manifolds suspended over every point in other manifolds. The concept of trivial bundles [cyllindrical] and twisted bundles [Mobius strips] are samples of projected dimensions in curved spacetime.

Dan returns and is murdered by his young mother, who will live a linear existence into the 21st Century.

I have no argument with your right to go along with the format we've been given. I am just a bit useasy with the unnecessarily complex facility of it all.

As I see it, you are observing a killing in 1977, which would off one Daniel Faraday. The creative device of time travel on Lost, given all free reign, does not obliterate the causality violation that each of us, regardless of any dualities or other multiplicities - pick a number - in our complex human nature[s], has a singular physical identity. That singular identity, destroyed at a point in time prior to that individual's major accomplishments, erases the accomplishments.

In reality theory, there is a definite paradox. In Rod Serling metaphysics, I agree, there is no paradox.

I am still an avid Lost fan; but after last night's episode, I look forward to The Fringe even a bit more than I do the next episode of Lost. At least with The Fringe, I still have Matthew Abaddon; and I kow what I'm in for: Night Stalker on steroids.

You're studying for the LSAT, or have taken it, or have studied some form of formal logic, in any case, I forgive your polemic tone (just joshing, really. I didn't know when this turned into a discussion with my graduate student instructor).

You obviously have a vastly deeper understanding in quantum and mechanical physics as the rest of us, so forgive me if my comprehension of spacetime comes off as second-rate. But I've always grasped Hawking and Thorne (again, from my VASTLY inferior comprehension) as thinkers who would write off the idea of causality being that if space exists as, Minkowski believed, a fifth spatial dimension, then everything that has happened and will ever happened has already happened. Then we throw in the Casimir effect and theoretically, we can have people exist in two different places in spacetime at one time, correct? Is this the point of disagreement here? What I don't understand is why would Daniel's accomplishments cease to exist if he was sent "back" and died? Would it be any different if the wormhole sent him "forward" and he died there?

Or is the point at issue whether or not the show employs a highly theoretical view of physics or if it is solely grounded in what we ostensibly know now?

I think he is dead. If not, I'm not watching any more. I'm kind of tired from people 'rising' from the dead. It's becoming boring.

How many people have supposedly been dead then risen?

1. Christian Shepard (don't think he's alive anyway, just possessed by island)
2. Patchy (we never actually saw him die, just sustain huge injuries and not move for a little)
3. Naomi (she also may have just passed out)
4. John Locke (definitely died and resurrected)

I'm sure there are a few I am missing.

How many people have supposedly been dead then risen?

1. Christian Shepard (don't think he's alive anyway, just possessed by island)
2. Patchy (we never actually saw him die, just sustain huge injuries and not move for a little)
3. Naomi (she also may have just passed out)
4. John Locke (definitely died and resurrected)

I'm sure there are a few I am missing.

Jin, and Charlie when Jack brought him back to life. Desmond also seemed dead and then Jack revived him after the chopper crash.

How can we forget Ben!

You beg the question when you remove "causality" as relevant to any consideration of paradox is a Lost conception of reality.

When older Charlotte died it was before the well was built so that would make it well before Charlotte was even born.
They flash to 1974 and we see young Charlotte at 4 years old
Three years later we see young Charlotte at 7 years old having the same conversation with Daniel that older Charlotte was describing to Daniel when she died.

No paradox was caused by older Charlotte dying in year (?000 ) which was definitely years and years and years before 1970 when Charlotte was born.

Why would older Daniel dying in 1977 cause any paradox?

[quote=nanwynnfan;2170442]You beg the question when you remove "causality" as relevant to any consideration of paradox is a Lost conception of reality.

Yep. I wrote that.

You're studying for the LSAT, or have taken it, or have studied some form of formal logic, in any case, I forgive your polemic tone (just joshing, really. I didn't know when this turned into a discussion with my graduate student instructor). It's a little late for me to be studying for LSATs, since in 1954, I, like Charles Widmore, was serving in the U.S. Army. I got no tropical Island duty. I got Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, total 'nuther kind of Island. You have twice stated, quite definitively, that there is "no paradox," the second time after I had stated that, for me, there was. Didn't think the tone was particularly polemic; but another poster did opine that he thought I "was confused."

You obviously have a vastly deeper understanding in quantum and mechanical physics as the rest of us, so forgive me if my comprehension of spacetime comes off as second-rate.I do not want to come off as some expert in quantum physics. In fact, I was a liberal arts major in college and grad school and taught English on the secondary level for many years [10]. What I have tried to do is read, re-read if necessary, and take notes from books of non-fiction that really impress me, always trying to be sure I grasp the essence of the theories behind the math & science, but never delving into math systems far beyond my formal training.

To date, Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality: a Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a tome of nearly 1,100 pages, rife with deep, arcane and theoretical math models is one book from which I've taken significant notes. Following Penrose's prefatory advice, I read that which I comprehend and skip the math puzzles also offered and explained.

Similarly, James Glieck's Chaos gave me a fairly solid grip on the mathematics underlying fractals, Mandelbrodt sets, and the like. It's a labor of love as a sideline, that Lost has rejuvenated.

But I've always grasped Hawking and Thorne (again, from my VASTLY inferior comprehension) as thinkers who would write off the idea of causality being that if space exists as, Minkowski believed, a fifth spatial dimension, then everything that has happened and will ever happened has already happened. Then we throw in the Casimir effect and theoretically, we can have people exist in two different places in spacetime at one time, correct? Is this the point of disagreement here? What I don't understand is why would Daniel's accomplishments cease to exist if he was sent "back" and died? Would it be any different if the wormhole sent him "forward" and he died there? Using Penrose as an example, Minkowskian space geometries create a loop when laid against the more elaborate spacetime model of Einstein, which causes a causality error ~ inconsistency, largely upon which Lost bases its time travel instances. I am not being argumentative [and I certainly hope I'm not hair-splitting] when I say that Daniel Faraday, dead in 1977, never accomplished a thing after that date. If he did, it's a fictional device, which accepted 100% by a willing audience, makes all "paradox" disappear as a leap of faith.

Or is the point at issue whether or not the show employs a highly theoretical view of physics or if it is solely grounded in what we ostensibly know now?The sole point at issue, for me at least, is really a sore point: Why would writers, with so much exquisite material created and so readily audience-accepted resort to rather ham-handed and repetitive time-travel sequences: remote Pacific Island, obscure but advanced scientific experimentation, plane crash survivors, kidnapping by strange inhabitants, odd, seductive and mysterious relics, vying power plays, magnificent anomalies herion-filled Virgin statues, a strange and remote power figure in a dilapidated cabin, mind-game psychological head games within studies, smoke monsters and anomalistic animal life ........ [B][how can you trade all that for donkey wheels, moving islands and time skipping on the fast track?]

I am hanging in there, lord willing, through the to end. [But gosh, how I miss the honest intrigues from earlier seasons!]

[quote=afterthegoldrush;2170563]
Using Penrose as an example, Minkowskian space geometries create a loop when laid against the more elaborate spacetime model of Einstein, which causes a causality error ~ inconsistency, largely upon which Lost bases its time travel instances. I am not being argumentative [and I certainly hope I'm not hair-splitting] when I say that Daniel Faraday, dead in 1977, never accomplished a thing after that date. If he did, it's a fictional device, which accepted 100% by a willing audience, makes all "paradox" disappear as a leap of faith.


This is all based on if older DAniel is dead.

Of course older Daniel will never accomplish anything else after having died in 1977. Just as older Daniel would also never accomplish anything if he died in 2007.
Dead is dead and you can't accomplish anything after you die.

No matter what year older Daniel is in when he dies his death would not affect younger Daniel growing up and accomplishing everything that older Daniel accomplished before he died.

Older Daniel's death would not cause a paradox with younger Daniel's life.

As nutty and disturbing as it is to give birth to your own father, I have to agree that it kind of fits together. That would mean that both Charles and Penny come from the genetic input of just two people, Desmond, and Penny's Mom. Solving the recursive equation, (recursive since Penny is her own grandmother, and Charles is his own grandfather), it also means that 1/3 of Penny's DNA is from Desmond (2/3 from her mom), and 1/3 of Charles's DNA is from Penny's Mom (and 2/3 from Desmond). That would seem to make it almost inevitable that there would be some genetic deformity in both Charles and Penny. In conclusion, Charles has only four toes, and is depicted in the statue. You heard it here first.

It increases the chances of some kind of a recessive gene expression, but by no means makes it inevitable, or even highly probably. There is just as much chance of a favorable gene being more strongly expressed. But then, you were joking here, right? The four toes idea sounded tongue-in-cheek.

As for the main thrust of this thread, I am not at all convinced that Daniel is dead at this point, though he may indeed die later, if not then. What Eloise and Charles say outside of the hospital certainly implies that the sacrifice she speaks of is the death of her son. But...

Jeremy Davies is going to be in the rest of the episodes for this year, according to the IMDB--could be flashbacks, could be ghostly visits, could be resurrection, who knows?

I would agree that this episode certainly ended as if he were dead. But there are other possibilities. He could be taken to the Temple, for example.
100%
Another thought: When I watched Eloise slap Charles after he claimed Daniel was his son too, my first thought was that maybe Dan was a result of a rape. Almost immediately, I rejected this for the idea that she was angry that he, who nothing to do with bringing up his child, would dare to claim to be a parent. But, did anyone else think rape? The two of them certainly did not seem to be all that friendly in 1954. And young Charles was a quick to react, violent jerk (not that those qualities are absent now).

I think Daniel is dead, Eloise's talk to Charles sorta gave my the impression, that Eloise knew that her son would return to the Island to die.

Now it makes sense why Charles and Penny haven't had scenes together, Charles think that if he stays away from Penny, he wont have to sacrfice her for the Island or something.

Just wait til next week... It will be apparent that Dan was shot through the shoulder, he'll rest for a couple of hours, and then he'll be right as rain.

The shoulder ?!


He's dead.

Based on the scene, he's dead.

Based on how Hawking was acting through the episode, he's dead.

But there are two major (IMO) plot points related to Dan that haven't been answered - his constant being Desmond, and the Comicon video.

They can dismiss both with a little effort, but it would be a major-cop out.

We can see the Desmond connection through a flashback, but he was certainly there during the Comicon video (Davies confirmed it was him)...

Based on the scene, he's dead.
We can see the Desmond connection through a flashback, but he was certainly there during the Comicon video (Davies confirmed it was him)...

As well as confirming this Davis also says something quite spoilery in an interview with Doc Jensen. Look at your own risk

The first video from Jan 28th - around the 3:15 mark.

http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,1550612_20245764,00.html?bcpid=4396297001&bclid=9302206001&bctid=13970587001

I think Daniel will return for flashbacks, and theres still a chance Des will connect with him again through time-travel.

In the latest Lindelof interview, Damon says the Comicon video is "partially canon, partially promotional." Take that for what it's worth.

-spec


But there are two major (IMO) plot points related to Dan that haven't been answered - his constant being Desmond, and the Comicon video.

They can dismiss both with a little effort, but it would be a major-cop out.

We can see the Desmond connection through a flashback, but he was certainly there during the Comicon video (Davies confirmed it was him)...

[quote=nanwynnfan;2170615]

This is all based on if older DAniel is dead.

Much speculation in this thread assumes his death to be a fact. Me? I dunno.

Of course older Daniel will never accomplish anything else after having died in 1977.No revelation there. That would be paradoxical.

Just as older Daniel would also never accomplish anything if he died in 2007.
Dead is dead and you can't accomplish anything after you die.True. But that chronology is not in question.

No matter what year older Daniel is in when he dies his death would not affect younger Daniel growing up and accomplishing everything that older Daniel accomplished before he died.Let's say, for the sake of example, that Daniel was born in 1972. That would make him 35 in 2007. There is, has been, was, one Daniel Faraday, with that one individual's life line in place, space, and time. IF, at age 23 [1995] he was the youngest and highest doctoral grantee in British history, then he had garnered a great and unique honor, worthy of one so gifted. According to mathematical, physical and cosmological laws to date, so far so good.

Older Daniel's death would not cause a paradox with younger Daniel's life.Under normal [reality] circumstances, 100% agreed. However, IF this specific Daniel Faraday has a documented birth date in 1972 and he is murdered by his mother in 1977, he is dead in 1977, when he is chronologically 5 years old [or less]. No award. No special status. Nil. RIP, tot.

Realistically we have a causality violation [physical and mathematical scientists, not I]. In creative fiction, as a dramatic device in the sci-fi genre, we have dramatic revelations, vatic experiences involving leaps of faith, suspensions of disbelief - and no fictional paradoxes.

I promise. My last words on paradox. Honest.

Naomi.
Charlotte.
Daniel.

I'd be a little worried if I were I were Miles...

The rescue Team is the new Tailies.

Naomi.
Charlotte.
Daniel.

I'd be a little worried if I were I were Miles...



Or Frank. (And don't forget the deceased Abbadon, who hired Naomi.) Lost's pattern has been to devote each season after the first to a new group of people whom they mostly discard as they move on to the next. The tailies were mostly gone at the end of S2, many of the Others from S3, although that group in all its configurations remains important enough never to disappear entirely, and now the freighties who got to linger a bit longer because of the Writers' Strike. Now we have the Ajira 316ers who will no doubt be wiped out by series' end.

The show is essentially about how the 815ers fit into the long struggle between Dharma and the Hostiles. Anyone else is just there to provide filler material.

Cardie

The rescue Team is the new Tailies.

Well, as a narrative, LOST's season 5 should be looping back on Season 2, so it actually makes sense that just as the Tailies dropped one by one, now the Freighter Folk are, too. Only Bernard was left of the Tail Section, and his fate is not known yet, but after 3 years of the1970s time skip, I'd say that Bernard has found a cave in which to rest in peace.

Under normal [reality] circumstances, 100% agreed. However, IF this specific Daniel Faraday has a documented birth date in 1972 and he is murdered by his mother in 1977, he is dead in 1977, when he is chronologically 5 years old [or less]. No award. No special status. Nil. RIP, tot.
I promise. My last words on paradox. Honest.
Still saying this all depends on if Daniel is dead.

It is the older Daniel Faraday that is killed by Eloise and not the younger Farady. The younger Faraday will grow up to be the older Farady and get the awards and special status.
1978 and later has not occured for anyone except for the Time Traveling losties so there is no record of older Daniel having acquired any of those awards and such. In 2007 there will be only one record of a Daniel Faraday having received any of those awards and such.
There is no paradox.

Still saying this all depends on if Daniel is dead.

It is the older Daniel Faraday that is killed by Eloise and not the younger Farady. The younger Faraday will grow up to be the older Farady and get the awards and special status.
1978 and later has not occured for anyone except for the Time Traveling losties so there is no record of older Daniel having acquired any of those awards and such. In 2007 there will be only one record of a Daniel Faraday having received any of those awards and such.
There is no paradox.

Look, as Mike Mazurki film noire classic Murder, My Sweet] said to the young blonde sitting on the bar stool, "So far, you rate me polite, huh?"

I have promised myself and others that I've had my last word belaboring paradox. You have suggested in one post that I was "confused;" and now, in a sequence of follow-ups, you persist in lecturing me on the nuances of the word. I choose not to engage this any further, except to add I know full well what paradox is, the many faces it can wear, and its relative dependence, in the modern era, as a figure of speech and a creative device. I have allowed that all such highly liberal applications there is no paradox. However. in physics, cosmology. biology, and mathematics [both theoretical and practical], there is paradox. With that, I bow out. [Polite, huh?]

Look, as Mike Mazurki film noire classic Murder, My Sweet] said to the young blonde sitting on the bar stool, "So far, you rate me polite, huh?"

I have promised myself and others that I've had my last word belaboring paradox. You have suggested in one post that I was "confused;" and now, in a sequence of follow-ups, you persist in lecturing me on the nuances of the word. I choose not to engage this any further, except to add I know full well what paradox is, the many faces it can wear, and its relative dependence, in the modern era, as a figure of speech and a creative device. I have allowed that all such highly liberal applications there is no paradox. However. in physics, cosmology. biology, and mathematics [both theoretical and practical], there is paradox. With that, I bow out. [Polite, huh?]
... :105: ...
:rotflmao2::rotflmao2::a080::rotflmao2::rotflmao2:

... :105: ...
:rotflmao2::rotflmao2::a080::rotflmao2::rotflmao2:



Must be the air quality on Bali Hai; [ ... "my head sticking out from a low flyin' cloud"]:.but that's a whole 'nuther island.

Our Island, inaccessible as it is presumed to be, must have been a fairly crowded place in the 1970s, largely by tots and toddlers.

Well, as a narrative, LOST's season 5 should be looping back on Season 2, so it actually makes sense that just as the Tailies dropped one by one, now the Freighter Folk are, too. Only Bernard was left of the Tail Section, and his fate is not known yet, but after 3 years of the1970s time skip, I'd say that Bernard has found a cave in which to rest in peace.

Well, this might interest you...

http://a-walkerlost-on-wisterialane.blogspot.com/2009/04/incident-5x16-5x17-press-release.html

That's the press release for the season 5 finale. It shows that L. Scott Caldwell as Rose and Sam Anderson as Bernard are indeed scheduled to appear.

It would certainly seem that if Eloise thinks that she killed her son in the past, then he is most likely dead.

However, when re-watching the ep, in the scene where Widmore is visiting and the plane crash is on TV, it seems like Faraday's mind is in some sort of "time-travely" state. And he is sad, because all of those people are dead. If he knows/feels this from his consciousness jumping in time, it would suggest that he must be alive at some future time when all of our Losties are 'really' dead. Just an idea?

hugh_person:

I read your post, then noticed tour icon phrase:

" ...why does the light scatter funny in ... Coach"

Last night, going over notes I had taken from a book with a chapter dealing in quantum particles, the refraction oddities Faraday noted on the Island tied in with Professor Penrod's text [which I as a layman, will try to paraphrase without bumping into to much furniture as I do so]:

[Mathematical differential operators [Oliver Heaviside] can be tested like ordinary numbers revealing a virtually invisible commutation presence critical to conserved mass and momentum in quantum mechanics symmetries. [Following empasis is mine]: Each particle seems to have a symmetry bewtween its time component and its three space components].

As I see it, existing models of spacetime, presented on manifolds, are subject to variable time operators operating on frequency and enegy, suggesting a possible why for Faraday's observation about light scattering on the island.

Other references in this book and others suggest the Island is indeed in a unique atmospheric snow globe which can distort light, space and time perceptions, while not necessarily entailing actual time travel.