Just my two cents after reading several boards. Just having a little fun.

Even when considering the self consistency theory (the idea that, if you go back in the past to change something, for example, stop a murder, and you succeed then the murder never happened which means that in the future you have no motivation to go back in time to stop it, which subsequently means that since you didn't go back, the murder still happened.

The show itself has avoided contradicting that so far, because everyone's efforts to stop events from happening have directly led to those events happening.

Obviously the whole idea assumes that you have future knowledge of what it is you are trying to stop.

The easiest way to prove the "WHH" theory invalid is simply to set out with the specific intent to prove it wrong.

For instance, assume that you are a lostie and have the capability to go back to 1977 with the simple intent to change the future. Just go back and toss a grenade into a tent of people that you know existed in future, and whose futures played no part in your motivation to go back in time to prove WHH wrong.

Bam. Multiple people who existed in the future you came from no longer exist = the past and the future are changed, and in the timeline, you will always go back and kill those people, which drastically alters their timeline from the original, but not yours.

I understand the premise the show is basing what has turned out to be a great season.

Any thoughts?

Impossible.

If whatever happened happened, then you could not change it no matter what you did. Something would happen to prevent you, or those people would live regardless, or the grenade would be a dud. And this would be what always happened, you just didn't know it yet. Ex: reading the last chapter of a book before the rest. You know whats going to happen, and no matter how many times you read the book, its gonna end up the same. you just don't know how everything happens yet.

However, if the past can be changed, then you wouldn't need to toss a grenade anywhere. Your mere presence in the past would screw things up. Doing ANYTHING would change the past.

I really don't believe you can have both, even with Desmond in the picture. Time travel is being used in Lost as a storytelling device, not as a plot device. Its basically the same thing as a flashback, except we already know SOME things that are going to happen. So far, the show has been extremely consistent (minus the odd differences in Dharma/Otherville. Unfortunately, the argument that the processing center was far away from the rest of the Barracks is invalid as of Dead is Dead, so I'm just gonna reserve judgment til something gets confirmed) with showing that WHH. I don't anticipate them introducing changes (unless they are tiny ripple like changes)

I was a little annoyed that Daniel seemed to be recanting the WHH thing when he said that their were variables, after the pain-staking process of going over it with people who didn't get it. I have been arguing all season that a major theme is "free will" and whether it is real or an illusion for the '77 Losties. Daniel now seems to be saying that it is real and you can actually change the future that you've already experienced. I personally think he is wrong and is leading Jack and the others into fufilling their established role in history (doing what already happened). What really drove me crazy is that when Daniel was telling everybody that they can change it so the plane never crashed, nobody asked "so what happens to us, will we cease to exist and our lives be lived in an alternate timeline that we aren't part of? Will we suddenly wake up on the plane? Will we remember everything that happened over the last three years? Will the Red Sox still win?

Whatever happened happened.
Period.
Faraday knew it, he's the one who explained it to everyone.
The problem is that since Charlotte died, he refused to aknowledge it and decided he had to try anything he could to change the past.
That doesn't make him less wrong.
The proof is that he died when he thought he could change things.
He was always supposed to end up dying at that exact point.
It's just like Sayid's attempt to change the past by shooting young Ben. Of course Ben survived, how else would he have pissed off Sayid enough to motivate him enough to shoot him.
The self-consistency theory, has yet to be proven wrong. This episode doesn't disprove what has been repeated throughout the series, if anything, Faraday's failure to change things further enforces it.
It is very sad and deterministic but trying to avoid the inevitable is what makes great tragedies (I'm surprised TBBT didn't name any character Cassandra) and hey, it's only in case of time travel, so don't be too sad.

Maybe our beloved losties will eventually be able to change the past, but if they do, my guess is it will be more towards the series finale.

I'm also another WHH. After finally explaining it to my wife and my mother-in-law and them finally getting it, my wife says "SEE! They CAN change the future!"
But in the end Daniel dies, Sayid shoots Ben, Jack refuses to operate on Ben, Ben gets Othered in the temple and its always happened this way.

I'm also another WHH. After finally explaining it to my wife and my mother-in-law and them finally getting it, my wife says "SEE! They CAN change the future!"
But in the end Daniel dies, Sayid shoots Ben, Jack refuses to operate on Ben, Ben gets Othered in the temple and its always happened this way.

I get what you are saying, but... if thats the case, then you have a problem because the idea of a timeline based on WHH is that it is a straight line and nothing can be changed.

So Sayid shot Ben in 1977 based on things that hadn't even happened yet. So far, the show hasn't contradicted itself, but all it will take is for one of the losties to go back in time, remember what they did in the past, and do the opposite.

So what would prevent Sayid from say, going back in time with knowledge of the fact that him shooting Ben causes Ben to become who he was, and so with that knowledge now he decides not to shoot Ben. Or he shoots him 5 times in the face instead and then cuts his head off to make sure he is dead?

You can't have specific knowledge of an event and control over your actions surrounding that event and NOT be able to change the past. You just may not get it right the first time.

But this is what we are seeing now. Sayid and Jack are back in 77. Sayid shoots Ben feeling that he is doing everyone a favour for the future. Clearly he doesn't succeed and thats where Jack can step in and save him. Of course he doesn't, again with full knowledge of what Ben becomes. All these future changing events that THEY believe are going to alter the course of the future are indeed what they have always done. By believing that they are changing it, they are in fact following the events that have always lead to the 2004 future.


So Sayid shot Ben in 1977 based on things that hadn't even happened yet. So far, the show hasn't contradicted itself, but all it will take is for one of the losties to go back in time, remember what they did in the past, and do the opposite.


But seeing things through Sayid's eyes he already knows what Ben turns into. So saving everybody the trouble he decides to off him before he can turn into the Ben they all know and love in 2004+. By virtue of him doing that, he has set their future, in 2004, in motion.

I get WHH (it makes the most sense to me), but here is what bothers me in this story....

Did Charlie "always" die in the Looking Glass?
Was Clair "supposed" to get on the helicopter?
Was Alex "supposed" to get shot by Keamy?
**This one is a little different*** - Did they always build the runway on the Hydra island? Was there an alternate timeline where A316 crashes and everyone dies?

So far, I think, the only character that has had the ability "see" events ahead of his "present" is Desmond. He helped Charlie avoid 2 or 3 deaths, right? So did Des change the timeline? By Charlie living to complete his mission at the Looking Glass, does this cause a "Butterfly Effect" that changes everything?

When WHH was first introduced by Mrs. Hawking (talking to Des) she pointed out that the man with the red shoes was about to die. He says, "can't we warn him". She says, "sure, but then he would die tomorrow by slipping in the shower". But that is not true WH,H. They did change history. The problem with this is....whatever that person does in between in "first" death and his "real" death has a Butterfly Effect.

I believe the purpose of Eloise even talking to Des was to make him believe that he could not change the future. If the future could not be changed why would she need to talk to him at all? Why would she need to convince him to go to the island and push the button if he had no choice but to go there anyway?

This is why in the last episode Eloise says "For the first time, I do not know what is going to happen next."

...So what would prevent Sayid from say, going back in time with knowledge of the fact that him shooting Ben causes Ben to become who he was, and so with that knowledge now he decides not to shoot Ben. Or he shoots him 5 times in the face instead and then cuts his head off to make sure he is dead?...

I disregard firm belief in either the future can't be changed or it can. This is a fictional story using TT (an impossibility) as a vehicle. TPTB can direct it which ever way would make the best story.

Having said that, I would really like to see something like you suggest. A newer version of Sayid could tell the Sayid in '77 to not shoot Ben. Since the Sayid in '77 knows that TT can happen, he shouldn't be surprised by a visit from him (or anyone) that says they are from the future.

But, sadly, I don't think that will happen because;

There simply isn't enough air time left to explore that plot direction, or
Ben will eventually kill Sayid in revenge for shooting him.

For instance, assume that you are a lostie and have the capability to go back to 1977 with the simple intent to change the future. Just go back and toss a grenade into a tent of people that you know existed in future, and whose futures played no part in your motivation to go back in time to prove WHH wrong.

Bam. Multiple people who existed in the future you came from no longer exist = the past and the future are changed, and in the timeline, you will always go back and kill those people, which drastically alters their timeline from the original, but not yours.

Any thoughts?

Because of the WHH principle, as DPro2270 already stated, if you tried to throw a grenade into a tent to kill people you know were alive in the future, something would go wrong to prevent you from killing them. Either the grenade wouldn't work, or everyone would survive, or the grenade may detonate in your hands killing you.

We've already seen someone try to do exactly this, Sayid, and it didn't work, he fulfilled his destiny by setting in motion the events that caused Ben to become the man Sayid hates.

What really drove me crazy is that when Daniel was telling everybody that they can change it so the plane never crashed, nobody asked "so what happens to us, will we cease to exist and our lives be lived in an alternate timeline that we aren't part of? Will we suddenly wake up on the plane? Will we remember everything that happened over the last three years? Will the Red Sox still win?

This really bothered me too. Jack and Kate were just listening to Dan and not asking the obvious question about what would happen to all of them since they were already on the Island.

I get what you are saying, but... if thats the case, then you have a problem because the idea of a timeline based on WHH is that it is a straight line and nothing can be changed.

So Sayid shot Ben in 1977 based on things that hadn't even happened yet. So far, the show hasn't contradicted itself, but all it will take is for one of the losties to go back in time, remember what they did in the past, and do the opposite.

So what would prevent Sayid from say, going back in time with knowledge of the fact that him shooting Ben causes Ben to become who he was, and so with that knowledge now he decides not to shoot Ben. Or he shoots him 5 times in the face instead and then cuts his head off to make sure he is dead?

You can't have specific knowledge of an event and control over your actions surrounding that event and NOT be able to change the past. You just may not get it right the first time.

You seem to be suggesting that they have an accessible time machine that they can just use to go back to the past whenever they want. They don't, and they have no idea how they ended up in the past to begin with. They can't just travel back and try to change things a second time.

However, according to the principle's LOST has set forth, even if they did travel to the past multiple times to "correct" something, it wouldn't work, because WHH.

I believe the purpose of Eloise even talking to Des was to make him believe that he could not change the future. If the future could not be changed why would she need to talk to him at all? Why would she need to convince him to go to the island and push the button if he had no choice but to go there anyway?

I think you're right, roger. Desmond is the black swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory), and the reason Ellie knows this is that she and Charles set him up to be the black swan in the first place. From his introduction to Penny at the monastery, to his entry in Widmore's boat race, to his arrival on the island (which, to me, screams 'event window'), Des may have been part of a well-constructed plan. Given Ellie's willingness to sacrifice her son, she must have understood the importance of the incident...without the incident, Desmond could never become the black swan. Although her vision of the future may be starting to fade, she was certainly convinced that Des still has work to do for the island.

The problem with creating a black swan, however, is that, once created, he or she could go off in almost any direction changing the past in unexpected ways. That, IMO, is why Eloise showed up at the jewelry store...as long as Desmond believes that what happened, happened, he is less likely to get out of line before he does the island's "work".

Because of the WHH principle, as DPro2270 already


You seem to be suggesting that they have an accessible time machine that they can just use to go back to the past whenever they want. They don't, and they have no idea how they ended up in the past to begin with. They can't just travel back and try to change things a second time.

However, according to the principle's LOST has set forth, even if they did travel to the past multiple times to "correct" something, it wouldn't work, because WHH.

I'm not specifically talking about lost, I'm talking about the idea of an unchangeable linear timeline.

Its one thing to say WHH is the rule, and another to say that some invisible force would prevent the grenade from going off.

Clearly, the trend is that attempts to thwart the future have thus far led directly to it, but I'm just pointing out that someone with specific knowledge of the future should be able to change the past.

For example, now that the losties are back there in 1977, and we are assuming that WHH is in effect and that what happened is what always happened, why then wouldn't they have known in 2004 when the plane crashed that they had been on the island before?

For example, now that the losties are back there in 1977, and we are assuming that WHH is in effect and that what happened is what always happened, why then wouldn't they have known in 2004 when the plane crashed that they had been on the island before?

They are living in a linear timeline. 2002,2003,2004,then the left behinds go to 1974. They experience the 70s AFTER the 2000's

Its one thing to say WHH is the rule, and another to say that some invisible force would prevent the grenade from going off.

There really isn't an invisible force preventing the grenade from going off, it's that it never happened, so it can't happen. You could have every intent of changing the future but by the WHH rule, you will fail.

For example, now that the losties are back there in 1977, and we are assuming that WHH is in effect and that what happened is what always happened, why then wouldn't they have known in 2004 when the plane crashed that they had been on the island before?

Because when the plane crashed in 2004, they hadn't been on the Island yet, that happens in their future.
100%
They are living in a linear timeline. 2002,2003,2004,then the left behinds go to 1974. They experience the 70s AFTER the 2000's

Precisely Hunkyhurley. Whereas my timeline goes from when I was born in 1974 ------> 2009, Sawyers would be 1969 (arbitrarily the year he was born) -------> 2004, 1974----->1977, then 2008 if they jump back to the present.

I personally think that with what we're been given at the moment, the WHH theory is the onlt way things can pan out. We've been dhown time and again that whatever the losties do in the past will bring about the situations in the present. The only exception to this rule seems to be Desmond, who right now doesn't look to be any position to change the past! I think if WHH is proven to be wrong it'll be found through whateve Dan found in Ann Arbor. Of course these could have just ended up being the rantings of a mad man, but I think him changing his tune like he did could be pointing to something.

I personally think that with what we're been given at the moment, the WHH theory is the onlt way things can pan out. We've been dhown time and again that whatever the losties do in the past will bring about the situations in the present. The only exception to this rule seems to be Desmond, who right now doesn't look to be any position to change the past! I think if WHH is proven to be wrong it'll be found through whateve Dan found in Ann Arbor. Of course these could have just ended up being the rantings of a mad man, but I think him changing his tune like he did could be pointing to something.

Up to this point, WHH has been confirmed, but theoretically if one knew not only what happened in the future, but also in the past, then they would know what decision NOT to make.

There are several "hints" that the show may be going that way:

1. Eloise says she no longer knows whats going to happen (i.e. the future hasn't been determined)

2. Faraday now believes that its possible to change the past because people (with specific knowledge) are the variable.

3. Faraday has found some way to precisely time travel.

4. Faraday's comments to young Charlotte are different from what she said they were in a previous show.
100%
Another argument "for" being able to change the past, is the conversation between Eloise and Whidmore.

She speaks of sacrifice, insinuating that she knew Daniel would die by sending him back to the island.

Then Daniel, after he is shot by his mother, says "you knew this would happen, and you sent me anyways".

My question is, are we really to believe that she had no choice but to send him back to the island? Even though she had knowledge of what would happen, but did it anyways. She made the CHOICE to send him back, otherwise it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.

I think its quite apparent that she could have simply stopped him from going back and being killed by her younger self, but didn't for the simple fact that there may be consequences for changing the past that we don't know about.

The easiest way to prove the "WHH" theory invalid is simply to set out with the specific intent to prove it wrong.

For instance, assume that you are a lostie and have the capability to go back to 1977 with the simple intent to change the future. Just go back and toss a grenade into a tent of people that you know existed in future, and whose futures played no part in your motivation to go back in time to prove WHH wrong.

Bam. Multiple people who existed in the future you came from no longer exist = the past and the future are changed, and in the timeline, you will always go back and kill those people, which drastically alters their timeline from the original, but not yours.

Nope. From everything we've seen so far, the timeline protects itself. If you tried to throw a grenade into a tent full of people that exist in the future, the grenade would be a dud, or the pin would get stuck, or it would take a freak bounce, and roll back out of the tent in another direction. We've seen weapons misfire when they should have killed people that still exist in "the future" of when they could have died. Michael, for one.

Its one thing to say WHH is the rule, and another to say that some invisible force would prevent the grenade from going off.

Clearly, the trend is that attempts to thwart the future have thus far led directly to it, but I'm just pointing out that someone with specific knowledge of the future should be able to change the past.

For example, now that the losties are back there in 1977, and we are assuming that WHH is in effect and that what happened is what always happened, why then wouldn't they have known in 2004 when the plane crashed that they had been on the island before?


It's not an invisible force, it's just what happened. For example, let's say Jack gets angry at Miles. He decides to try to kill baby Miles. Some force is not going to prevent Jack from doing so, he will merely fail, and we only know this because Miles is alive. This is the same as the Sayid argument--he tried to change the past, but in doing so, performed the past exactly as it had "previously" occurred.

As far as the latter question, 1977 is their future, and it just happens to be the past, chronologically. Do you know what's going to happen to you in a month?


My question is, are we really to believe that she had no choice but to send him back to the island? Even though she had knowledge of what would happen, but did it anyways. She made the CHOICE to send him back, otherwise it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.

I think its quite apparent that she could have simply stopped him from going back and being killed by her younger self, but didn't for the simple fact that there may be consequences for changing the past that we don't know about.


It's not that she doesn't have a choice. It's that we know the choice she made. She was put in the unique position of the viewer, in that she knows the outcome of her decision before she had to make it. So, yes, she could have not sent him. But she didn't, and THAT'S the important thing.

It's not what you can or can't do, it's what you do.

monkeysnatch, I think you have to suspend your belief a bit to understand WHH.
If I understand you right, youre asking why couldnt they change the past, if they know the things theyve already done.
If it was possible to change the past, it would be beyond me to understand how the logic in that would work. I mean, if everyone who time travels can change something, then where do the changes end? If anyone from anytime can change events from any other time what is the ultimate outcome of things?

I think its not only understanding the rule that you cant change things, but also understading the real scenario that this can happen in. In WHH time travel can only happen where the people themselves do not choose the time in which they will travel to, and also they dont have accurate information on how exactly things have turned out the way they did.

I guess that if Sayid knew that shooting Ben was going to get him exactly that where he was suppose to be he wouldnt have done it. But the fact is that he only knew that in the end Ben turns out to be a bad man, but not how he did, or that it was partially started by his actions.

Well it's really up in the air at this point until we see how things pan out in the season finale and how that impacts all of the events to happen in Season 6.

The show has seemed to really enforce WHH, but as others have said previously that in a way, by various people just believing in WHH have naturally it caused to....well, happen. Sure Sayid inadvertantly failed at this by trying to kill young Ben, but because Jack believed in WHH, he did not try to save Ben, resulting in him being taken to the Hostiles and being healed in the Temple. It has been said that this is supposed to happen, which is likely, but we do have to question What if Jack had attempted to save Ben? People have said it wouldn't have worked, but we actually don't know that for sure because it was never done so we can't say indefinitely that that is what would happen. Somehow, Ben would have to live because that was his past and he lived on into the future, but that doesn't mean the details of how that would happen couldn't be changed, and even if things would have happened that way, Ben would certainly still want to go back because he hates life at the DI and would have at least wanted to confront Richard about Sayid. So it's possible that even if Jack could have saved him, he still would have ended up with the Others somehow. Does that make sense at all? :undecide: The details can perhaps be changed but not the overall outcome.

As far as Mrs. Hawking goes, she has constantly enforced things to happen, in Desmond's life, her son's life. Again, if WHH why would she even need to in the first place? I think her uncertainty comes from possible fear that things just might be able to be changed somehow, and I think that scares her.

What doesn't make sense about Dan's story is that if she killed him so he simply wouldn't enact anything to stop the Incident from occurring, why instead of bringing him up to be a scientist, thus eventually leading him to his fate, why didn't she just let him become a pianist? At this point I don't see what Dan really did in order for him to need to be on that Island - other than perhaps informing Des of his uniqueness? Unless, like his mother, he was there to enforce to the Losties that WHH so that they would not actually change things themselves once they entered in the DI. :confused: I don't know did I just answer my own question?

To some degree I want to believe in WHH, but if there is a variable to come into play, I hope it is as I described or similar because I don't want this to turn out to be another Heroes. :angry:

Somehow, Ben would have to live because that was his past and he lived on into the future, but that doesn't mean the details of how that would happen couldn't be changed, and even if things would have happened that way, Ben would certainly still want to go back because he hates life at the DI and would have at least wanted to confront Richard about Sayid. So it's possible that even if Jack could have saved him, he still would have ended up with the Others somehow. Does that make sense at all? :undecide: The details can perhaps be changed but not the overall outcome.


The details stay the same, as well. If Jack had decided to save Ben, then that would have been what always happened. He wouldn't be changing the past. All we know had to be true (and I say "had to be" not because some force was making it so, but because we were already given this knowledge) was that Ben still lived. The writers could have had Jack try to save him. That wouldn't be a change. They had Jack not try to save him, instead, and that wasn't a change. The future was a direct result of the previous choices.

If Jack tried to save Ben, maybe Ben would have died. It was an option. It's just that, since we know about him in 2004, that wasn't what happened. Prior to Jack's decision, we didn't know what happened. There wasn't a guiding force keeping Ben alive, forcing them to make the decisions they made. We just knew the effect before we knew the cause. Now we know the cause.

As far as Mrs. Hawking goes, she has constantly enforced things to happen, in Desmond's life,

Desmond is the wildcard. Disregard Desmond in all topics of WHH and you'll be fine. Once the show addresses this point, we'll know.

her son's life. Again, if WHH why would she even need to in the first place? I think her uncertainty comes from possible fear that things just might be able to be changed somehow, and I think that scares her.

She's not really enforcing WHH. Just because she's nudging it in the right direction doesn't mean it actually needed help. Her "attempts at nudging" are just further events in the timeline, nothing more.

What doesn't make sense about Dan's story is that if she killed him so he simply wouldn't enact anything to stop the Incident from occurring,

I'm pretty sure she killed him because he was a gun-totin' lunatic calling out for her, threatening the lives of her people.

why instead of bringing him up to be a scientist, thus eventually leading him to his fate, why didn't she just let him become a pianist? At this point I don't see what Dan really did in order for him to need to be on that Island - other than perhaps informing Des of his uniqueness? Unless, like his mother, he was there to enforce to the Losties that WHH so that they would not actually change things themselves once they entered in the DI. :confused: I don't know did I just answer my own question?

She was in the unique position of knowing the outcome before the cause, just like us. She knew he was on that island, so she decided to go along with it, rather than fight it. She already knew the choice she made. . .she just didn't have the option to make it, yet.

Main argument why WHH is true - because we have only 1 season left, we don't have time to alternative timeline re-telling. It can be wrong only if we didnt know how many seasons left, but it's not the case.

Main argument why WHH is true - because we have only 1 season left, we don't have time to alternative timeline re-telling. It can be wrong only if we didnt know how many seasons left, but it's not the case.


I think changing the past will turn out to be possible on lost, I just don't think everyone is capable of it.

I think changing the past will turn out to be possible on lost, I just don't think everyone is capable of it.

I think Desmond is the only person capable of doing so, and I believe we have already seen him do so. I think it was just little events that didn't change the whole timeline, but that is due to course correction.

She was in the unique position of knowing the outcome before the cause, just like us. She knew he was on that island, so she decided to go along with it, rather than fight it. She already knew the choice she made. . .she just didn't have the option to make it, yet.


Its sort of doing backward rationalizing to her decisions, and I hope thats not the case. I dont think its logical for someone to make a decision beacuse he knows he had. Then what was his reason to do so in the first place?
She must have some other reason to send him, and we get hints that she does when she says things like "Then God help us all" when replying to Ben asking what happens if he cant get them all to come back. She knows its dangerous for things not to happen like theyre suppose to, but not only because she knows they will happen.

If you knew your entire adult life that you'd killed your future son, wouldn't you do absolutely EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening? Yet Eloise seems to do the exact opposite. Why????? From whom does she learn about TT and the skills needed to compute trajectory and time/space locales of the Island at the Lampost station? Why does she interject herself into Desmond's life and 'nudge' him away from the direction he was going (buying Penny a ring). If WHH then why need she bother? He'd still end up on the Island. Faraday espouses WHH, then suddenly storms the Island saying his mother was wrong, 'free will' is the variable, and he knows how to prevent the 815 crash, oh but then he's dead...and his Mom always knew it would end this way for him, because WHH. Of course she orchestratedd his whole life to get him to that point....why'd she need to if WHH? Wouldn't it still have happened if she'd let him be a happy nerdy piano playing physicist?. What a circle! (I heard that's what the original title of 'Lost' was going to be). I'm not arguing against WHH, it's logical, but the storytelling has a lot of unexplained motivations that seem illogical. Of course the writers can create their world with any rules they like (and I'm happy to be along for the ride, really!), but I'd really like to see some believeable exposition soon. It's illogical to expound WHH with an exception:' special' Desmond. A theory permitting a force that can exercise change in the time-flow would logically then result in a multiverse--fractured timelines spinning off into unique and separate realities. Changes to a single time line expansion is paradoxical.

For example, now that the losties are back there in 1977, and we are assuming that WHH is in effect and that what happened is what always happened, why then wouldn't they have known in 2004 when the plane crashed that they had been on the island before?

Because they haven't been on the island previous to 2004 in their timeline. Unless of course if they were to meet their child selves who are also existing in that time period and told them that in 2004 they would be in a plane crash. I think what people are failing to realize is that 1977 is our Losties future, therefore they cannot have prior knowledge of it.

You&Me 2003 -> 2004 -> 2005 -> 2006 -> 2007 -> 2008
Losties 2003 -> 2004 -> 1974 -> 1975 -> 1976 -> 1977

So while Jack would know who won the WorldSeries from 1975 to 2007, anything beyond that has not happened yet.


If you knew your entire adult life that you'd killed your future son, wouldn't you do absolutely EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening? Yet Eloise seems to do the exact opposite. Why?????


Because when Widmore speaks of sacrifice and she slaps him, its because SHE knows whats going to happen when he ends up back in time. She also knows that it HAS to happen.
Think of it as a key in a lock. If the teeth aren't precisely cut to match the tumblers inside the lock, then the lock won't open.


So Sayid shot Ben in 1977 based on things that hadn't even happened yet. So far, the show hasn't contradicted itself, but all it will take is for one of the losties to go back in time, remember what they did in the past, and do the opposite.


The events HAVE happened. Ben made their lives miserable on the island in 2004, and off the island in the 3 years they were off it. If you recall Ben contracted out Sayid to kill a bunch of people. The dialogue between Ben and Sayid is telling of this. Ben wants Sayid to kill, Sayid says that he is not a killer. Sayid then shoots child Ben and says to him "You are right, I am a killer." Which is perplexing in itself because childBen has no idea who this guy is, but we do.
As for doing the opposite the fact is they will always do what they have always done, even though they think its going to change the eventual outcome. We of course come to find out that whatever choice they make will always lead to the same outcome.


Up to this point, WHH has been confirmed, but theoretically if one knew not only what happened in the future, but also in the past, then they would know what decision NOT to make.


Thats exactly the point. If our current 1977 Losties were to travel back to 1974 and do it all over again, of course Sayid might make an alternate choice knowing that Ben would be alive long enough to be brought to the others temple. Jack might just operate on the kid, knowing the end result. But their first go around in 1974-1977 they had no idea what effect their choices would be.

...So while Jack would know who won the WorldSeries from 1975 to 2007, anything beyond that has not happened yet...

This is probably the reason Chuckie and Ben have amassed such a huge fortune. By knowing what will happen (sporting events, stock, etc.) they would be able to become zillionaires.

I dont think so. We have no idea if they have TT'd or not. But its a possibility.

I dont think so. We have no idea if they have TT'd or not. But its a possibility.

True, there's no direct proof, but Ben's statement to the hotel clerk in Tunisia about 'what year is this' strongly implies that he knows about TT.

If you knew your entire adult life that you'd killed your future son, wouldn't you do absolutely EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening?

No, I wouldn't. My son's life isn't worth the risk of destroying time and space. If you rewatch the episode with the knowledge of her decision, you can see her struggle with this task at hand. Especially when young Dan is playing the piano. This isn't easy for her, not at all. But she knows, as do many characters "in the know" that they have to make sacrifices in order to protect the island. It won't be until we find out what the island is that we can decide if it was worth it or not. I feel very bad for Elle and what she had to do, I do not judge her on it.

If you knew your entire adult life that you'd killed your future son, wouldn't you do absolutely EVERYTHING to prevent that from happening? Yet Eloise seems to do the exact opposite. Why????? From whom does she learn about TT and the skills needed to compute trajectory and time/space locales of the Island at the Lampost station? Why does she interject herself into Desmond's life and 'nudge' him away from the direction he was going (buying Penny a ring). If WHH then why need she bother? He'd still end up on the Island. Faraday espouses WHH, then suddenly storms the Island saying his mother was wrong, 'free will' is the variable, and he knows how to prevent the 815 crash, oh but then he's dead...and his Mom always knew it would end this way for him, because WHH. Of course she orchestratedd his whole life to get him to that point....why'd she need to if WHH? Wouldn't it still have happened if she'd let him be a happy nerdy piano playing physicist?. What a circle! (I heard that's what the original title of 'Lost' was going to be). I'm not arguing against WHH, it's logical, but the storytelling has a lot of unexplained motivations that seem illogical. Of course the writers can create their world with any rules they like (and I'm happy to be along for the ride, really!), but I'd really like to see some believeable exposition soon. It's illogical to expound WHH with an exception:' special' Desmond. A theory permitting a force that can exercise change in the time-flow would logically then result in a multiverse--fractured timelines spinning off into unique and separate realities. Changes to a single time line expansion is paradoxical.


WHH isn't the same as fate. No, Faraday would NOT have ended up on the Island just because WHH. His mother nudged him along the way because, quite simply, that's a cause. The effect was Daniel going to the island. WHH doesn't mean effects will randomly happen. Hawking's "making sure things happen correctly" is simply the cause to an effect, nothing more.

If she let him continue playing the piano--poof, end of story. She didn't, however, and that set into motion the story leading to the eventual island misadventures. The events that occurred didn't occur because "the timeline demanded it," they occurred because of the choices made by the characters that lead to what we've seen.

An example of exactly this: Jack not saving Ben. He felt, "Well, why should I bother?" His thought process eventually ended up taking Ben directly to the Hostiles.

As far as Desmond creating multiple timelines, yes, that would be what occurs. It's not necessarily paradoxical, considering that physicists predict such a thing to be true, working under some hypotheses (I'm not yet sure which have graduated to theories, yet).

So you're confused by El's motivation for sending Dan to the island. So am I, but that doesn't mean this isn't how it's always happened. Until we see why it was important to send Dan it will be a question, so just keep watching the eps.

So you're confused by El's motivation for sending Dan to the island. So am I, but that doesn't mean this isn't how it's always happened. Until we see why it was important to send Dan it will be a question, so just keep watching the eps.

She KNOWS that she shot him in 1977. If she doesn't push him into a course where he ends up on the island, there's a chance he may not be there in 1977. If he isn't there in 1977, then the whole fabric of space and time could be in jeopardy and everything may cease to exist. Is that a chance you would be willing to take?

I think that Daniel's story and Eloise's story are set up to contrast with one another. Love can make us do unreasonable things. That's why Daniel has convinced himself that he can break WHH by the force of his will to change it, because his love for Charlotte has made him desperate and he NEEDS to believe he can change it.

OTOH, we have Eloise who made no such attempt to save her son. Instead of doing what any woman I can think of would do, i.e. trying to keep Daniel as far away from physics and the island as she possibly could, she took the fatalistic view and literally spent his whole life pushing him into the path of that bullet that she, herself would fire. The heartbreaking tragedy of the thing is that Daniel had just enough time before dying to understand that and to conclude that his mother must never have loved him at all. Because he knows from experience that if you love someone, you fight to save them in any way you can, to change fate, no matter the cost, no matter how impossible it seems. You fight to save them, and his mother didn't.

...The heartbreaking tragedy of the thing is that Daniel had just enough time before dying to understand that and to conclude that his mother must never have loved him at all. Because he knows from experience that if you love someone, you fight to save them in any way you can, to change fate, no matter the cost, no matter how impossible it seems....

Very well put, indeed. Not only did she not love him, but she used his simply as a tool.

I read spoilers, but my husband doesn't. So while watching The Variable, I knew that Eli would shoot Dan - but he didn't know that. I didn't want Dan to die, but nothing I could do would change that. It had already happened. East Coast people had already seen it!

Now, from my point of view, I could silently barrack for things to change - don't wave that gun around, Dan! come and help him, Jack & Kate! take charge, Richard! But whatever I did, however hard I yelled at the tv, Dan would still die.

Eloise read spoilers too. She had Dan's notebook. From her point of view, Dan's death had already been shown.

My husband didn't know any of this. It didn't matter, though. Dan was still going to die, it's just that MrDavis didn't know it.

Kit Davis - GREAT ANALOGY!!

Dezdemona--I know 'lurve' is a strong motivator, and poor love-starved Dan may had a kind of attachment disorder with Charlotte, but he was also an extremely gifted physicist, which requires highly developed sense of logic; he had the right brain/left brain both well developed (think precocious child pianist). I just believe the motivations for his actions weren't overwhelmingly driven by his feelings for Charlotte, to the detriment of all logic. I have to believe there's more going on than that alone. I don't think he lost his emotional equilibrium or is acting in desperation from love. He is clearly driven by the condensed timeline till the 'incident' and need for saving everyone on the island from it's effect, motivating others to act as well.

Well, here's an obvious question that surely has been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't gone through all of the topics so I haven't seen it!

My question is this:

How can Daniel die in 1977, but exist in the future?

I'm not saying any of these theories re: WHH are correct or incorrect, just trying to make sense of this in my head.

Lots of people are posting that Ben wouldn't have died here, no matter whether Jack intervened or Sayid shot him or not, etc. The reason often given is that we know he exists in the future, so he couldn't die in 1977.

I'm confused as to why this wouldn't also apply to Daniel. We know he exists in the future, yet he dies in 1977??

Can anyone explain how this works to me?

Thanks!

My question is this:

How can Daniel die in 1977, but exist in the future?
He can die in 1977 because he wasn't actually born yet. He is born in a year after 1977, grows up and then travels BACK to before he was born and is killed. This is possible because he dies as an adult. If was was killed as a child in 1977, then he couldn't exist in the future, but this isn't the case at all.

Well, here's an obvious question that surely has been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't gone through all of the topics so I haven't seen it!

My question is this:

How can Daniel die in 1977, but exist in the future?

I'm not saying any of these theories re: WHH are correct or incorrect, just trying to make sense of this in my head.

Lots of people are posting that Ben wouldn't have died here, no matter whether Jack intervened or Sayid shot him or not, etc. The reason often given is that we know he exists in the future, so he couldn't die in 1977.

I'm confused as to why this wouldn't also apply to Daniel. We know he exists in the future, yet he dies in 1977??

Can anyone explain how this works to me?

Thanks!
Young Ben can't die in 1977 because then young Ben would never grow up to be the older Ben that we meet in 2004.

Lets say Daniel was born in 1977 and in 2004 is 27 years old and is older Daniel. When they flashed back to 1974 older Daniel is 27 years old then 3 years pass and Older Daniel is now 30 year old and he dies.
But the younger Daniel that is born in 1977 will still grow up to be the older Daniel in 2004.

Does that help?

He can die in 1977 because he wasn't actually born yet. He is born in a year after 1977, grows up and then travels BACK to before he was born and is killed. This is possible because he dies as an adult. If was was killed as a child in 1977, then he couldn't exist in the future, but this isn't the case at all.

Thank you! I'm glad I asked, now. This makes sense to me...so given the WHH theory/etc, Daniel ALWAYS died in 1977. Ok. Now I get it. :)
100%
Young Ben can't die in 1977 because then young Ben would never grow up to be the older Ben that we meet in 2004.
[...]
Does that help?

Yes, I think it's clear now. I was initially thinking "Yeah, but Daniel went back, so he could die then, but Ben traveled in time too!"

But...Ben wouldn't be dying before he was born, making it possible for him to be born and then be an adult in 2004.

I think that's the key here?

Now with Miles, baby Miles couldn't die because then he wouldn't grow up to be 2004 Miles. But could adult Miles die in 1977? I think that he could, for the same reason Daniel could. Baby Miles could still grow up, go back in time to 1977 and die as an adult there. It'd be a bit of a weird loop, but I think that's how it would work?

Thanks to everyone for their patience with me, btw. You all are deconstructing big complicated theories and I'm just trying to get on board with the basics! ;)

In regard to Eloise, I think there is another possibility here. Isn't it possible that she sent Daniel back in the hopes that he could change the past and that she doesn't end up killing him? That she strongly believes after reading Daniel's journal, especially the end of it, when he believes that he can actually change things, that maybe he can? That is why she tells Penny that for the first time she really doesn't know what is going to happen.

Wouldn't you as a mother have that faith in your child you you believe to be brilliant do everything possible to give him the chance to change things?

The evidence that the past was the same as the past always was, was the scene where Charlotte said to Daniel that when she was a little girl, Daniel told her not to go back to the island. Even though Daniel had not experienced this event yet, on the show, he did it later. The birth of Ethan is another large thing. Also, he looks at Ellie and says, you knew this would happen(Ellie killed Daniel) So even though the experience was not in the consciousness of the character, the events had already happened. So Jack is getting the bomb ready so that Desmond has to push the button and the orientation film will talk about the incident and the women will not live through pregnancy.

I don't know if you spoiler something after an episode is aired, but I will do so anyway.

Yes, I think it's clear now. I was initially thinking "Yeah, but Daniel went back, so he could die then, but Ben traveled in time too!"

But...Ben wouldn't be dying before he was born, making it possible for him to be born and then be an adult in 2004.

I think that's the key here?

No, you're still missing something. I only mentioned Daniel not being born yet to give you an idea of the time period. Even if there was a young Daniel running around in that camp, old Daniel still would have died. Their life forces aren't tied together even though they are the same person. For all intents and purposes, when you time travel to a time you exist in already, you are separate people. Anything can happen to the older one without having a direct effect on the other.

Now with Miles, baby Miles couldn't die because then he wouldn't grow up to be 2004 Miles. But could adult Miles die in 1977? I think that he could, for the same reason Daniel could. Baby Miles could still grow up, go back in time to 1977 and die as an adult there. It'd be a bit of a weird loop, but I think that's how it would work?

Thanks to everyone for their patience with me, btw. You all are deconstructing big complicated theories and I'm just trying to get on board with the basics! ;)Ok, yes, you do get it. Yes, if adult Miles gets killed in 1977 it will have no effect on baby Miles at all. I just wanted to clear up the issue of me mentioning Daniel's birth. I just mentioned him not being born yet to illustrate that his future self is a totally different entity than baby him would be, and therefore anything that happened to adult him wouldn't change his being born or anything.

I just mentioned him not being born yet to illustrate that his future self is a totally different entity than baby him would be, and therefore anything that happened to adult him wouldn't change his being born or anything.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad I've got it now. I'll sound a lot more clever when I talk to friends about it! ;)
100%
In regard to Eloise, I think there is another possibility here. Isn't it possible that she sent Daniel back in the hopes that he could change the past and that she doesn't end up killing him? [...]
Wouldn't you as a mother have that faith in your child you you believe to be brilliant do everything possible to give him the chance to change things?

I would LOVE it if this was the explanation. I get how others are saying how she HAD to sacrifice him, how time/space/etc were more important than the life of her child, etc etc, but it still is painfully sad. I would love to find out that she didn't necessarily set him up his entire life only to be killed by her because *that's the way it had to be* but that she was hoping he could change things.

Another thing I wondered, though, is if she remembered killing him in 1977, wouldn't she have known what would have happened from there on out? I know there's the whole "variable" thing, but if her killing him always happened, then why would things unfold any differently this time?

Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad I've got it now. I'll sound a lot more clever when I talk to friends about it! ;)
100%


I would LOVE it if this was the explanation. I get how others are saying how she HAD to sacrifice him, how time/space/etc were more important than the life of her child, etc etc, but it still is painfully sad. I would love to find out that she didn't necessarily set him up his entire life only to be killed by her because *that's the way it had to be* but that she was hoping he could change things.

Another thing I wondered, though, is if she remembered killing him in 1977, wouldn't she have known what would have happened from there on out? I know there's the whole "variable" thing, but if her killing him always happened, then why would things unfold any differently this time?

What gets me about that is until Daniel traveled back to 1977, she hadn't killed him. Just as Sayid hadn't shot Ben until he went back. This is where it gets very confusing since the past is based on a future event.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right but how can these people have a memory of something that hasn't yet happened. When Eloise is talking to Jack and the other Lostie's Daniel had't yet gone into the Other's camp. The only explanation I can come up with is that the past, present and future are all happening simultaneously.

What gets me about that is until Daniel traveled back to 1977, she hadn't killed him. Just as Sayid hadn't shot Ben until he went back. This is where it gets very confusing since the past is based on a future event.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right but how can these people have a memory of something that hasn't yet happened. When Eloise is talking to Jack and the other Lostie's Daniel had't yet gone into the Other's camp. The only explanation I can come up with is that the past, present and future are all happening simultaneously.

Exactly, you cant look at it chronologically. At least not from the characters' perspectives. In Daniel's present compared to Jack's, no he hadnt gone into the camp yet. However from the historical point of view he already had.

Exactly, you cant look at it chronologically. At least not from the characters' perspectives. In Daniel's present compared to Jack's, no he hadnt gone into the camp yet. However from the historical point of view he already had.

Yet, does Eloise have a memory of the event before Daniel actually does go into the camp? Or is the memory made once the event actually occurs. It's the proverbial Chicken before the Egg question.

This is important as to what Eloise's motivations were/are. If she doesn't have a memory of killing Daniel because that event is in Daniel's future(yet her past) is her sending Daniel to Island for a very different reason than the idea that she knows that she is going to kill him.
When she talks of sacrifice she could be talking about the way she was forced to raise him and the fact that it led to his problems at the time she sent him back.

Yet, does Eloise have a memory of the event before Daniel actually does go into the camp? Or is the memory made once the event actually occurs. It's the proverbial Chicken before the Egg question.

This is important as to what Eloise's motivations were/are. If she doesn't have a memory of killing Daniel because that event is in Daniel's future(yet her past) is her sending Daniel to Island for a very different reason than the idea that she knows that she is going to kill him.
When she talks of sacrifice she could be talking about the way she was forced to raise him and the fact that it led to his problems at the time she sent him back.
2004 Eloise has the memory of killing Daniel in the past because it happened for her in 1977 so it is her past..
The 2004 Daniel that Eloise sends to the Island has not flashed to1974 because as you said, it is his future.

Yet, does Eloise have a memory of the event before Daniel actually does go into the camp? Or is the memory made once the event actually occurs. It's the proverbial Chicken before the Egg question.
She remembers it from 1977 because that is when it happened. Saying the event doesnt occur because the Daniel experiences it later is innaccurate. Look at it from historys perspective and youll see that Daniel dies before he is born. It just happens that Daniel experiences years in an abnormal order.

This is important as to what Eloise's motivations were/are. If she doesn't have a memory of killing Daniel because that event is in Daniel's future(yet her past) is her sending Daniel to Island for a very different reason than the idea that she knows that she is going to kill him.
When she talks of sacrifice she could be talking about the way she was forced to raise him and the fact that it led to his problems at the time she sent him back.

She remembers killing him because that is when it happened. Everyone there witnessed it happening in 1977. Every year after that she will remember because it already happened. It didnt happen for young Daniel yet, but it happened for old Daniel. So the sacrifice is sending him to the island knowing that he will then actually experiencine being killed by her. At that point he is yet to experience it, but it already happened from a historical standpoint.

i cannot read all this thread but...

I'm slightly confused how detonating the bomb changes whatever happened happened theory. Surely if its 1977 then it still counts as W.H.H, also how do we know it never happened for sure?