It's interesting that the first time we meet Desmond he's asking Jack:

"What if you did fix her?" "But what if you did?" "And you don't believe in miracles?"

and when he's fleeing the hatch he tells Jack,:

"if by some miracle you manage to get that computer working again..."

both exchanges are ended with see ya in another life, yeh and both miracles happen.

is this a red herring or could these be a means of building Jack's faith even without him knowing it?

maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but it popped out at me tonight. In some ways, Desmond could be to Jack what Helen was to John in that they both help to build faith in others. Thoughts?

I think you might be on to something. :)

I like this...it makes sense.

BEST THREAD TITLE EVER~!

I also noted the phrasing in the stadium particularly. Not "Maybe you fixed her," or "Maybe she'll be OK," which is what you would normally say, but "What if you did fix her?"

I felt as if this was an important branching off point for Jack, as if Desmond had invoked an alternate reality or future or past. A Schroedinger's cat moment, almost...

Whoa...crazy avatar, jmberger! :biggrin:

Thanks! :biggrin: The full sized version is here:

http://chaosdancer.egoplex.com/deck/major23.html

BEST THREAD TITLE EVER~!

I also noted the phrasing in the stadium particularly. Not "Maybe you fixed her," or "Maybe she'll be OK," which is what you would normally say, but "What if you did fix her?"

I felt as if this was an important branching off point for Jack, as if Desmond had invoked an alternate reality or future or past. A Schroedinger's cat moment, almost...

Thanks jmberger.

I only watched it once, but there was a recap episode that was narrated explaining the time leading up to the season finale, LOST: THE JOURNEY (http://www.twiztv.com/cgi-bin/lost.cgi?episode=http://dmca.free.fr/scripts/lost/season1/lost-sp1.txt)What if you're on a plane flying from Sydney to Los Angeles -You could be sitting next to anyone Now, what if something went wrong?And what if somehow ... you survived? What if you awake the next day and help still hasn't come? What would you do? What if you realize you are free from your past?"

It's interesting, at the time I remember joking to my sister "and what if you've seen all these episodes a few times over?" but now it feels eerily familiar and seems like it might be important. how? I have no idea:rolleyes:

Hmmm...this is one of the best theories I've heard yet. It kind of makes me think of the creators' words...

We won't know what the island is until the end of the series when they reveal it, or like Schroedinger's cat, when they open the box.

Edited because I quoted when I should have spoiler-fonted.

^ Exactly. I suspect that where ever the show goes, the boundary between "finished" and "unfinished" will blur. I expect a scene some time down the road where someone steps right off stage left from the Island and enters stage right in a flashback.

I don't have anything to add but awesome thought, little sister!

Speaking of Desmond...

http://www.egoplex.com/2005/10/desmonds-friend-lost-photo-above-was.html

http://www.egoplex.com/2005/10/desmonds-friend-lost-photo-above-was.html

Interesting... :ohwell: I'm not sure the resemblance is very strong, though, or at least I don't see it.

Speaking of Desmond...

http://www.egoplex.com/2005/10/desmonds-friend-lost-photo-above-was.html

The thing that is interesting about this is that the woman in the inset photo also plays the Lotto Girl. If I remember correctly from other posts she's also Harold Perrineau's wife in real life. If it is her that would be an interesting coiincedence because I believe Harold has said it is important that she played both of those roles. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

I believe she is not the lotto girl; Lotto Girl was in Outlaws, the other Sawyer flashback (see here http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=21832 for the Lotto Girl story).

I will note that the majority of the "connections" we've been shown seem to go through Sawyer somehow.

From what I understand, she was the groupie that Charlie fought with--that is, if we're talking about Lotto girl..

According to IMDB, she was the Lotto Girl announcing Hurley's numbers, and she was in Outlaws, so this is not a visual ID, it's a casting note (although IMDB is not 100% foolproof, it is generally pretty reliable). Her listing said nothing about any other episodes. (I saw this mentioned somewhere els and checked IMDB, but it's not my catch.)

is this a red herring or could these be a means of building Jack's faith even without him knowing it?
cmcdtv: I completely agree (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?p=527393#post527393). In fact, I doubt Jack would have returned to the Hatch if not for the first encounter in the stadium.

cmcdtv: I completely agree (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?p=527393#post527393). In fact, I doubt Jack would have returned to the Hatch if not for the first encounter in the stadium.

hey bigmouth, I was just thinking about that scene last night. That Jack in the extraordinary situation, entering the hatch, would be thinking back on another extraordinary event in his past, the meeting with Desmond. Without that meeting, I agree, he would have not gone back to the hatch, he would have persued Desmond like he did Ethan (maybe not out of malevolence or revenge) but certainly for answers.

That is a very interesting point about John Locke. He wasn't all blind faith with Desmond and the button. Hmmm. his faith was wavering, it wasn't what he was expecting?

I think the only reason Jack is on the island (remember that Jack was going to be killed off in the pilot) is to allow faith into his life. He is admittedly a 'man of science', never allowing something beyond what is proven in science into his mind. Locke and Desmond have both challenged him to accept something he could not comprehend, with him eventually succumbing to caring about the code and pushing the button. He has changed before our very eyes, but where is his dad's body?:cool:

I think the only reason Jack is on the island (remember that Jack was going to be killed off in the pilot) is to allow faith into his life. He is admittedly a 'man of science', never allowing something beyond what is proven in science into his mind. Locke and Desmond have both challenged him to accept something he could not comprehend, with him eventually succumbing to caring about the code and pushing the button. He has changed before our very eyes, but where is his dad's body?:cool:

I just posted this (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=536247&postcount=240)on the Tiberius thread. What I think is interesting is that the philosopher John Locke had been trained in medicine. So we have our man of faith, who is also a reference to our philosopher who was trained in the medical profesion (with the encouragment of a patron, Anthony Cooper, who suffrered liver disease) and shares the same name as our actual physician, (who through the entire first season we almost all assumed had no faith), imposing his faith on Jack. The button pushing scene is almost, as sincere as it seems, a beligerent challenge on what Jack has said to the other plane crash survivors. In the same vain that Kate's live together die alone was. (if that make sense)

cmcd: You're going to love this. Because of Tiberius's most recent video clue, I was looking at the first video he gave us, way back when. Watch it again. (http://www.androidworld.com/tetra.qt)

allright. todell and i were talking about this after she watched White Rabbit(one of my favorites, shocking, right?) and i completely neglected one of the most important subjunctive exchanges especially considering the eerie similarities between Desmond's use of the subjunctive and Locke's:
Jack

I'm chasing something. Someone.

Locke

Ah. The white rabbit. Alice in Wonderland.

Jack

Yeah, wonderland, because who I'm chasing. . . he's not there.

Locke

But you see him?

Jack

Yes. But he's not there.

Locke

And if I came to you and said the same thing, then what would your explanation be, as a doctor.

Jack

I'd call it a hallucination. A result of dehydration, post traumatic stress, not getting more than 2 hours of sleep a night for the past week. All of the above.

Locke

All right, then. You're hallucinating. But what if you're not?

Jack

Then we're all in a lot of trouble.

Locke

I'm an ordinary man Jack, meat and potatoes, I live in the real world. I'm not a big believer in magic. But this place is different. It's special. The others don't want to talk about it because it scares them. But we all know it. We all feel it. Is your white rabbit a hallucination? Probably. But what if everything that happened here, happened for a reason? What if this person that you're chasing is really here?

Jack

That's impossible.

Locke

Even if it is; let's say it's not.

Jack

Then what happens when I catch him?

Locke

I don't know. But I've looked into the eye of this island. And what I saw was beautiful.

the chasing? The insistence on something miraculous being able to happen? come on!

I've been thinking about the subjunctive alot because of all the talk of 'production errors' and the rush to declare things an 'error due to filming at different times' or lack of props. I just feel like asking, but what if it's not? To me the people insistent on production errors explaining all of the topics discussed on the board, two films? rope leading somewhere? pipe tripping Sayid? Production errors! are very similar to Jack. Sure of everything having a simple, logical explanation. It's a TV Show, so WHAT IF they aren't production errors?

I think the subjunctive is amazingly important to this show it is how they are able to tell the story and make it compelling to such a wide audience. It is able to appeal to people who see the logical explanation as the only one, we are offered logical options, but it also appeals to people who have a more conspiratorial bent, offering them the what if. Locke looked into the island, it was beautiful, just like our show. That is why Locke and Desmond are so intriguing and vital to the story, they offer the what if. What if there is a reason and some one wanted that plane down.

I'm sorry, I felt like I needed to say that after the past few days, and the introduction of the filmstrip debate to the General Theories board. I figure the Desmond and Subjunctive thread I started was the best place to air it.

I also noted the phrasing in the stadium particularly. Not "Maybe you fixed her," or "Maybe she'll be OK," which is what you would normally say, but "What if you did fix her?"

I felt as if this was an important branching off point for Jack, as if Desmond had invoked an alternate reality or future or past. A Schroedinger's cat moment, almost...
Yeah, the quantum reality/possibility concept has been one of my favorites for a while now. Especially when you think about the Visual Inconsistencies (Todell's thread) and other references to "next life", etc.

shootfire's quote from TPTB:

We won't know what the island is until the end of the series when they reveal it, or like Schroedinger's cat, when they open the box.


Of course it could just be a coincidence, but Javi was quoted in one of his answers (I've forgotten the question):

"So many possibilities..." which could mean nothing or could be a hint.

Funny you should mention the cat, Tabby. Did you happen to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html) in the Times today?

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory


By DENNIS OVERBYE

Einstein said there would be days like this.


This fall scientists announced that they had put a half dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."

No, they were not sprawled along a sunny windowsill. To a physicist, a "cat state" is the condition of being two diametrically opposed conditions at once, like black and white, up and down, or dead and alive.

These atoms were each spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Moreover, like miniature Rockettes they were all doing whatever it was they were doing together, in perfect synchrony. Should one of them realize, like the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down, that it is in a metaphysically untenable situation and decide to spin only one way, the rest would instantly fall in line, whether they were across a test tube or across the galaxy.

What if? What if the island is a time travel portal, as some suggest. Just not the way they are suggesting? What if the island has portals to multiple universes, multiple possibilities? What if the others are able to occupy the same space at different times (thus the whispers)? What if?

(And by the way, that was exactly where I was going with my inconsistencies thread...)

It is the ultimate writer's device. All filmed fiction will have production errors and continuity goofs. But! If the premise is that multiple universes, travelling along the same general path, but diverging here and there in some of the details, happen to exist on the island, the production errors are no longer errors! They are small deviations in the different universes happening at once! Take the hatch, with its switcharoo record players, for instance. We're seeing the same events unfold simultaneously in different universes--but in one universe Dharma purchased a wooden record player, and in another universe it was a metal record player. Nothing else significant changed. Everyone else made the same decisions in both universes that lead to the point of Jack and Desmond reuniting in the hatch. Just the details are different. If this is what they are doing, then the question is, what will be the crisis point in which a significant choice leads the universes to diverge significantly?

What if the cat is alive and dead? You've opened the box!

Funny you should mention the cat, Tabby. Did you happen to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html) in the Times today?
jmberger and shootfire mentioned the cat...and I merely quoted them...

But no, I didn't read that article...was it an actual, physical experiment? I don't understand how the atoms could spin simultaneously in opposite directions...but I love the idea anyway.:biggrin: And someone else recently mentioned the "communication" between atoms, even from a great distance.

What if? What if the island is a time travel portal, as some suggest. Just not the way they are suggesting? What if the island has portals to multiple universes, multiple possibilities? What if the others are able to occupy the same space at different times (thus the whispers)? What if?

(And by the way, that was exactly where I was going with my inconsistencies thread...)

Right...we've nodded about that before...and actually, am full circle now on this thread, because it was Desmond's "what if" comment that first got me thinking about the "quantum thing".


It is the ultimate writer's device. All filmed fiction will have production errors and continuity goofs. But! If the premise is that multiple universes, travelling along the same general path, but diverging here and there in some of the details, happen to exist on the island, the production errors are no longer errors! They are small deviations in the different universes happening at once! Take the hatch, with its switcharoo record players, for instance. We're seeing the same events unfold simultaneously in different universes--but in one universe Dharma purchased a wooden record player, and in another universe it was a metal record player. Nothing else significant changed. Everyone else made the same decisions in both universes that lead to the point of Jack and Desmond reuniting in the hatch. Just the details are different.

Anything's possible [pun intended]...the first production errors could have occurred and then the plot was conceived to make use of them...or vice versa, but no production errors...or, as with so much of what's observed (and said by TPTB), they could be red herrings or even use of subtle humor.

If you're right, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I've been wondering about chicken/egg, especially when posters (and web sites) make certain references that seem to relate to what's happened/happening on the show. It would be a challenge to track them all down in an attempt to determine which came first (to determine "legitimacy"). The chicken/egg comes up even when wondering who posted what (and where) first (theory turf battles, LOL).


If this is what they are doing, then the question is, what will be the crisis point in which a significant choice leads the universes to diverge significantly?

What if the cat is alive and dead? You've opened the box!
And you've altered the results by observation? I haven't read about that theoretical experiment in a long time.

This reminds me of a pondering I posted about...whether the appearance/action of [whatever] depends on the perception (or point of view) of the observer. At the time, I was thinking about the octagonal box and where it is physically located, and only one observer at a time. What if there is more than one observer? Is it more about a difference in perception, similar to when two people recount a shared experience differently? Is one person more observant than the other? Is one person's memory faulty?

Not sure if I'm making sense...it's mind-boggling.:biggrin:

At other times, I have thought that TPTB are making use of "telling incomplete stories" and "character untruths" and closer to the end, will show us "what happened in between" and "what really happened".

Javi was quoted as saying that

(paraphrasing) "you have to remember that sometimes the characters are not telling the truth, as when Ana Lucia told Sayid about her attacker".


In so many ways, TPTB have it all covered.:D

HELLo....

The cat is dead and alive in the box UNTIL it is opened. Quantum physics tells us that simply observing something "changes" it. And William S. Burroughs reminds us that a problem cannot be solved in terms of itself.

Thank you.
MMF

Thanks, Madame...what are your thoughts on alternate realities/possibilities/dimensions re LOST?

HELLo.....

Are you asking if I think that the "children" are the "adults"...and vice versa...at the same time?

Thank you,
MMF

interesting indeed ...

on a somewhat related - or unrelated - tangent ... how much faith is everyone putting in the veracity of the flashbacks?

do you believe they are the ultimate "truth" or to you believe them to be the "truth" from the perspective of the character ... is this how the events actually unfolded or is this how the character *remembers* events unfolding? ...

the flashbacks could be a little like rashomon in that respect ...

HELLo.....

Are you asking if I think that the "children" are the "adults"...and vice versa...at the same time?

Thank you,
MMF
No, I wasn't, but that is interesting...do you think so?


on a somewhat related - or unrelated - tangent ... how much faith is everyone putting in the veracity of the flashbacks?

do you believe they are the ultimate "truth" or to you believe them to be the "truth" from the perspective of the character ... is this how the events actually unfolded or is this how the character *remembers* events unfolding? ...

I am thinking that the flashbacks are accurate, but possibly incomplete, and from the point of view of the character focused on...and there are many important as yet unseen flashbacks. Ah, good point...as the character remembers...hmmm.

I also think that the characters are sometimes lying, on the Island, and in the flashbacks (maybe).

HELLo.....

Are you suggesting someone has a Fungineering degree.

(We are watching Futurama on [adult swim])


Thank you,
MMF

DAmMIT....

We didn't mean to start a new page. We were watching the episode of Futurama called "The Series Has Landed" as we were typing...

HELLo....

The cat is dead and alive in the box UNTIL it is opened. Quantum physics tells us that simply observing something "changes" it. And William S. Burroughs reminds us that a problem cannot be solved in terms of itself.

Thank you.
MMF

That's not my take on this thought theory. I think Schroedinger is saying that quantum physics didn't have all the answers. Therefore, the cat is alive and dead at the same time. But, not really that it is alive and dead at the same time, really more that it is half-dead which is an impossiblity. Just as the radioactive nucleus that is also in the box cannot be both decayed and undecayed (thus, half-decayed). It must be one or the other. Schroedinger was just playing devil's advocate (he would do great on the 'Lage!).

Opening the box only answers the question of whether the cat is dead or alive. This thought theory shows that the experimenter can't predict what has happened to the cat until he/she actually opens the box for visual confirmation.

How does this apply to Lost? I think TPTB are just saying that we won't know what is really going on until the experimenter opens the figurative box (the island) for the viewers. Then, we will know exactly what state our Losties are in.

What if the cat is alive and dead? You've opened the box!

or

what if you walk up the stairs and down the stairs--at the same time!

That's not my take on this thought theory. I think Schroedinger is saying that quantum physics didn't have all the answers. Therefore, the cat is alive and dead at the same time. But, not really that it is alive and dead at the same time, really more that it is half-dead which is an impossiblity.

Nope.

The cat cannot be said to be meaningfully alive nor dead and definitely not half-dead. In the box, it exists as a superposition of possibilities until observed. Although there is a healthy lack of clarity about what that actually means even among experts, the basic thrust of it is that neither possibility becomes real until the observation is made -- at which point it becomes real retroactively through time.

In other words, once you look, you will find that the cat was already alive or dead. Depending on the timing, it may already started to decompose. But the past in which the cat died didn't become real until you looked in the box.

There is one reasonably credible alternative to this explanation, which is that from the moment you closed the box until the moment you open it, local reality (inside the box) splits into two parallel universes -- one in which the cat is dead and one is which the cat is alive. When you open the box, one of those two universes unites with your own.

The parallel worlds theory is hotly contested by physicists however, some of whom see it as the only reasonable view of what happens in these (quantum indeterminacy) situations and others who see it as requiring a wasteful amount of energy for every possible reality to actually exist side by side with equal weight.

The big problem most have with the "many worlds" theory is that, according to the theory, it is by definition totally impossible for information to travel from one universe to another, which means you can never experimentally disprove the premise, which is something scientists generally hate.

For a scientific theory to be deemed authoritative, it generally has to be falsifiable -- which means there has to be some experimental result which would prove it to be false. This also has in the past presented a problem for Schroedinger's cat -- which is, in the final analysis, only a thought experiment designed with the sole intention of showing just exactly how absurd quantum mechanics is.

However, the NYT just had a nice story on this very topic yesterday in which scientists have proved -- in principle -- that Schroedinger's cat is meaningful in the real world by causing particles to exist in two diametrically opposite states at the same time. Although it's not quite the same as actually sticking a cat in a lead box, we're stuck with it.

So, with these ideas, and bear with me cos this isn't exactly clear to me (my bestfriend in high school however, wrote a 40 page paper in Spanish, her third language, about Quantum Physics and Jorge Luis Borges and I still get headaches thinking about that one)

Could Dharma be both simultaneously good and bad and it is how the lostaways view them that changes the situation? John's perspective on the Hatch provides one set of objects we see inside and Jack's perspective changes those objects?

^^

hmmmm

HELLo.....

Are you asking if I think that the "children" are the "adults"...and vice versa...at the same time?

Thank you,
MMF

What is that supposed to mean, MMF (or should I say Celephais and/or Kuranes)? Is that some sort of Hyped-uP LOVEly, CRAFTy way to make us think? We hate thinking. Please do our thinking for us... :biggrin:

In appreciation,
KFZ

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html&OP=459315faQ2Fo0DQ5Eoq_dyQ3F__nsosvvQ3DoQ2BsosQ26o ydSDQ25dDosQ26DSQ25yQ60UnzQ3B)

I think Todel posted the link yesterday JM. Thanks Todel, I really liked the article!

(Glad to read you here JM.)

(I love how physicists like to try to disprove Einstein.)

(I would like to be in two places at once, as long as both of us are alive.)

(Glad to read you here JM.)

:)

(I love how physicists like to try to disprove Einstein.)

The funny thng is how much Einstein hated quantum theory and how his efforts to disprove it ended up being central to proving it (i.e., he kept suggesting absurd experiments that he figured would disprove it and they kept proving it).

:)



The funny thng is how much Einstein hated quantum theory and how his efforts to disprove it ended up being central to proving it (i.e., he kept suggesting absurd experiments that he figured would disprove it and they kept proving it).


But now they are finding out that the string theory that he was trying to prove is worth looking into.....Elegant Universe...Pretty kewl to watch...

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think Einstein had anything to do with string theory. :confused:

He was, however, seeking a unified field theory, i.e., a theory of everything, and string theory is one effort to solve that same problem. However, these days string theory is widely considered to be on the ropes (so to speak). Also, it's not falsifiable -- there is no experimental proof that has been currently imagined -- so it's kind of problematic on that front too...

Hmmm...this is one of the best theories I've heard yet. It kind of makes me think of the creators' words...

We won't know what the island is until the end of the series when they reveal it, or like Schroedinger's cat, when they open the box.

Edited because I quoted when I should have spoiler-fonted.

Funny you should mention the cat, Tabby. Did you happen to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html) in the Times today? What if? What if the island is a time travel portal, as some suggest. Just not the way they are suggesting? What if the island has portals to multiple universes, multiple possibilities? What if the others are able to occupy the same space at different times (thus the whispers)? What if?

(And by the way, that was exactly where I was going with my inconsistencies thread...)

It is the ultimate writer's device. All filmed fiction will have production errors and continuity goofs. But! If the premise is that multiple universes, travelling along the same general path, but diverging here and there in some of the details, happen to exist on the island, the production errors are no longer errors! They are small deviations in the different universes happening at once! Take the hatch, with its switcharoo record players, for instance. We're seeing the same events unfold simultaneously in different universes--but in one universe Dharma purchased a wooden record player, and in another universe it was a metal record player. Nothing else significant changed. Everyone else made the same decisions in both universes that lead to the point of Jack and Desmond reuniting in the hatch. Just the details are different. If this is what they are doing, then the question is, what will be the crisis point in which a significant choice leads the universes to diverge significantly?

What if the cat is alive and dead? You've opened the box!

Very interesting thread everyone! Todell, I really like your theory. That could turn out to be really interesting, especially if we see a crucial decision made that results in a split, and somehow we follow the split through to its resolution (kinda like that movie "Sliding Doors" in a way).

JMBerger! Whew... Excellent explanation of Schrodinger's cat. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you can, with the Schrodinger's cat experiment isn't it so that the cat dies when you open the box? In which case it cannot be determined with any certainty as to whether the cat was actually alive or dead within the box, since it definitely dies when you open it? I'm no physicist, but have read a few popular books on the subject, and that was my understanding of the end result.

Einstein wanted to unify the 2 theories put together.....the string theory is the culmination of those theories he was working on before he died..... at least that is what I got from the video....

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you can, with the Schrodinger's cat experiment isn't it so that the cat dies when you open the box? In which case it cannot be determined with any certainty as to whether the cat was actually alive or dead within the box, since it definitely dies when you open it? I'm no physicist, but have read a few popular books on the subject, and that was my understanding of the end result.

No, if you get curious and open the box, it does not kill the feline. Here's a not quite interactive website that explains the phenomonon of the 100% alive AND 100% dead cat: http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html (plus, if you like poems, check out the quantum link at the bottom to Cecil Adams' rhyme explaining this experiment in classic Seuessian rhyme. It's no iambic pentameter, but what it lacks in eloquence and beauty, it makes up for in hilarity).

Kung fu zoo: Yep, you're right... don't know where I got that idea... been years since I've read up on the subject. Thanks. Love the name btw (It is a play on Confucius' original name, right?).

Kung fu zoo: Yep, you're right... don't know where I got that idea... been years since I've read up on the subject. Thanks. Love the name btw (It is a play on Confucius' original name, right?).

Quite perceptive regarding my screenname... I am impressed! I was actually waiting for someone to ask what it meant so I could say "why, does it Confuse you?", but I like that you got it. Okay, now yours: ExistentialAngel ... a subtle reference to a certain Norwegian playwright, or the film?

Quite perceptive regarding my screenname... I am impressed! I was actually waiting for someone to ask what it meant so I could say "why, does it Confuse you?", but I like that you got it. Okay, now yours: ExistentialAngel ... a subtle reference to a certain Norwegian playwright, or the film?

That would've been a great response! Actually, not sure of either the Norwegian playwright or the film (there's a film?). It was/is a play on existential angst, and also a self aggrandizing statement to the fact/idea that I'm an angel existing/evident. No one ever gets it. I've been using the name for years on a couple of different ISP's (someone stole it from me on Yahoo, though) and I've yet to hear someone ask me if it's related to existential angst.

Sometimes I don't know how much it's worth....

I often get that "hey, they're talking chemistry and the history of the Atomic theory" then the theme leaves me.

Many of the names or things have a base in the field of science. You can even connect Libby to chemistry on Wikipedia. Then there's kelvin and rutherford. There's a comical reference to Bohr (boar). But now I'm hearing things about Schrodinger, Einstein and the string theory.

I'm too tired to further this investigation but thought maybe someone would say "oh yeah I remember those names from high school chemistry.

BEST THREAD TITLE EVER~!

I also noted the phrasing in the stadium particularly. Not "Maybe you fixed her," or "Maybe she'll be OK," which is what you would normally say, but "What if you did fix her?"

I felt as if this was an important branching off point for Jack, as if Desmond had invoked an alternate reality or future or past. A Schroedinger's cat moment, almost...

i like it
exactly, that may have been the key meeting that made this aall happen

allright. todell and i were talking about this after she watched White Rabbit(one of my favorites, shocking, right?) and i completely neglected one of the most important subjunctive exchanges especially considering the eerie similarities between Desmond's use of the subjunctive and Locke's:


the chasing? The insistence on something miraculous being able to happen? come on!

I've been thinking about the subjunctive alot because of all the talk of 'production errors' and the rush to declare things an 'error due to filming at different times' or lack of props. I just feel like asking, but what if it's not? To me the people insistent on production errors explaining all of the topics discussed on the board, two films? rope leading somewhere? pipe tripping Sayid? Production errors! are very similar to Jack. Sure of everything having a simple, logical explanation. It's a TV Show, so WHAT IF they aren't production errors?

I think the subjunctive is amazingly important to this show it is how they are able to tell the story and make it compelling to such a wide audience. It is able to appeal to people who see the logical explanation as the only one, we are offered logical options, but it also appeals to people who have a more conspiratorial bent, offering them the what if. Locke looked into the island, it was beautiful, just like our show. That is why Locke and Desmond are so intriguing and vital to the story, they offer the what if. What if there is a reason and some one wanted that plane down.

I'm sorry, I felt like I needed to say that after the past few days, and the introduction of the filmstrip debate to the General Theories board. I figure the Desmond and Subjunctive thread I started was the best place to air it.

are you basically saying that, alot of the blatant errors were seeing in thye show arent errors, but the losties reality, and like subconciously dont see theese things,(the rope, pipe,car in the jungle etc)?
but that this island is an alternate reality
im confused

are you basically saying that, alot of the blatant errors were seeing in thye show arent errors, but the losties reality, and like subconciously dont see theese things,(the rope, pipe,car in the jungle etc)?
but that this island is an alternate reality
im confused

Well, not quite. What if what we're seeing on the screen are the numerous possibilities at once? What if one shot is in Universe A, the next shot in Universe B, and so on. The universes are running parallel to each other, virtually the same, but not quite... and it is some future event (and definitely a past one) that is the difference between the two...

What if multiple realities are possible on the island, and we are seeing them all at once...

Where are they?
When are they?

Well, not quite. What if what we're seeing on the screen are the numerous possibilities at once? What if one shot is in Universe A, the next shot in Universe B, and so on. The universes are running parallel to each other, virtually the same, but not quite... and it is some future event (and definitely a past one) that is the difference between the two...

What if multiple realities are possible on the island, and we are seeing them all at once...

Where are they?
When are they?

thanks
i was thinking along those lines
but couldnt really word it
but i see what youre saying

Well, not quite. What if what we're seeing on the screen are the numerous possibilities at once? What if one shot is in Universe A, the next shot in Universe B, and so on. The universes are running parallel to each other, virtually the same, but not quite... and it is some future event (and definitely a past one) that is the difference between the two...

What if multiple realities are possible on the island, and we are seeing them all at once...

Where are they?
When are they?
Maybe this explains the re-use of names...Brian/Bryan, etc...that even though various choices made vary the alternate realities, common themes like names recur. Hope this makes sense! Would have to review the similar names to see if they occur in the same person's realities...

It makes sense once you've had enough glasses of wine, as I did when I posted that originally 45 minutes ago! Cheers!

(What if? What if you had a little too much to drink while you watched the Rose Bowl, and you posted nonsense on your little sister's thread?)

It makes sense once you've had enough glasses of wine, as I did when I posted that originally 45 minutes ago! Cheers!

(What if? What if you had a little too much to drink while you watched the Rose Bowl, and you posted nonsense on your little sister's thread?)

and what if the rose bowl lasted until next weds because the referees had to review every.single.play?

What if? What if every play had to be reviewed by the refs and the guys upstairs?

WHAT IF?

Sometimes I don't know how much it's worth....

I often get that "hey, they're talking chemistry and the history of the Atomic theory" then the theme leaves me.

Many of the names or things have a base in the field of science. You can even connect Libby to chemistry on Wikipedia. Then there's kelvin and rutherford. There's a comical reference to Bohr (boar). But now I'm hearing things about Schrodinger, Einstein and the string theory.

I'm too tired to further this investigation but thought maybe someone would say "oh yeah I remember those names from high school chemistry.

Yeah, I noticed the name thing earlier on in the show too. Here's a cute little paper written by Christopher ARZT about reduced effective Lagrangians (He's from the University of Michigan, hmmm... who else do we know that went to U of M?) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9304/9304230.pdf. And how could I forget Eduard ARZT from the Max Planck Institute (he almost looks like our Arzt with the explosive personality) http://www.mf.mpg.de/en/organisation/p_arzt.html. Ever notice that there are an abundance of names that have meanings that refer to "light" (e.g. Claire, Aaron, Ana Lucia, Sun (at least in English), Candle ... ad nauseum) Hmmm. Light/Photons/Electrons and the people that study them. Interesting.

@Kung Fu Zoo

Very interesting. I've been looking for Radioactivity/photons/electrons and really never thought of "light" thanks for pointing that out. It becomes a more comprhensive list. I also keep thinking about fusion/fission as it relates to radioactivity: The sun is a place where these reactions happen constiantly and naturally.

What if multiple realities are possible on the island, and we are seeing them all at once...

Or the flashbacks are Universe A, and the Island is Universe B, and they don't sync up in the end.

Very interesting. I've been looking for Radioactivity/photons/electrons and really never thought of "light" thanks for pointing that out. It becomes a more comprhensive list. I also keep thinking about fusion/fission as it relates to radioactivity: The sun is a place where these reactions happen constiantly and naturally.

Thanks. I'm glad to be of a service, Herk.

To come full circle, several of Einstein's early theories were on the properties of light: how the faster one comes to light speed, the slower time moves for that person, but only relative to an outside viewer. For instance, if you were to hitch a ride with a photon, you would essentially be condemning yourself to being frozen in the moment you hit light speed for eternity (unless an outside force slows you to sub-light speed), but you would never know time froze for you (unless you studied your physics - so kids, don't hitchike, and if you do, don't hitch rides with electromagnetic radiation).

For instance, if you were to hitch a ride with a photon, you would essentially be condemning yourself to being frozen in the moment you hit light speed for eternity (unless an outside force slows you to sub-light speed), but you would never know time froze for you (unless you studied your physics - so kids, don't hitchike, and if you do, don't hitch rides with electromagnetic radiation).
kung foo: That's brilliant! What if someone or something is trapped in the electromagnetic fields of the island?

jmberger: Good to see you again!

i realize that is about desmond,
but in the epsido with sawyer and the brief case,
he says to him,
I know you think you're doing her a favor. But however she talked you into doing this, she lied brother.
is that anything, to think of a connection. We know that Sawyer hasnt met Desmond yet. just a funny thought

does anyone remember the movie "sliding doors" it showed you two routes a person could take. one if she caught the train, the other if she didnt?
they ended up in the same spot at the end. she met the same person and there was a phrase. "no one expects the spanish inquistion".
in both avenues of chances that phrase is always used.
just a thought could this be a theory!

I dig movies that rip off catch phrases from Monty Python (unless they are chick flicks... snore)

does anyone remember the movie "sliding doors" it showed you two routes a person could take. one if she caught the train, the other if she didnt?
they ended up in the same spot at the end. she met the same person and there was a phrase. "no one expects the spanish inquistion".
in both avenues of chances that phrase is always used.
just a thought could this be a theory!

I guess that shoots down the famous phrase: "I have chosen the path less traveled and it has made all the difference."

Now, I didn't see that moved in total, just clips at a time. Tell me: she winds up in the same spot but was she "more better" with one choice or was the quality of life the same?

Herk,
they leave you with her in the elevator at the hosiptal. she chose wisely this time.
it is a good movie. makes you think about the choices we make.
its not a "block buster", but it is good.

It's interesting that the first time we meet Desmond he's asking Jack:

"What if you did fix her?" "But what if you did?" "And you don't believe in miracles?"

and when he's fleeing the hatch he tells Jack,:

"if by some miracle you manage to get that computer working again..."

both exchanges are ended with see ya in another life, yeh and both miracles happen.

is this a red herring or could these be a means of building Jack's faith even without him knowing it?

maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but it popped out at me tonight. In some ways, Desmond could be to Jack what Helen was to John in that they both help to build faith in others. Thoughts?

But what about Ray and his comments from last night's episode? While not in the subjunctive, (I don't believe he's telling the truth, thus perhaps the subjunctive implied) he indirectly affects Eko's faith:

RM:I know why you're here friend, but you can just save yourself the trouble, what happened here was not a miracle.

Eko: The doctor that treated your daughter seems to feel differently.

RM: Treated her? You mean tried to cut her open, he's just trying to cover up his own negligence. Did he tell you the whole story? how she supposedly drowned? She fell into a mountain river her body shut down, her body went into hypothermia which made her appear dead.

Eko: And why is your wife convinced otherwise?

RM: Because she's a zealot. All of this, everything she's doing is to spite me.

Eko: Why would she spite you?

RM: Because she knows I'm a fraud because I make my living as a psychic you see that's what I do I gather intelligence on people and I explot it. Everyday I meet people looking for a miracle, desperate to find one but there are none to be had, not in this world anyway

Eko: I will report back to my monsignor that there was no miracle here, your daughter is alive, that is all that matters.

It almost seems like a direct rebuttal to Jack and Desmond's "but what if you did fix her?", as if to imply that maybe what we believe to have been a miracle, with Sarah, was in fact a misdiagnosis.

I think they are connected, through Christian, (surprise, surprise) but I can't figure it out yet. Personal theory, the girl on Christian's table was sacrificed for Ray's daughter's survival
'The "not in this world anyway" is suspicious as well. Very similar to Desmond's another life comment.

Any ideas, or should I have listened to the automated "old Thread warning" notice I have to check?

It's interesting that the first time we meet Desmond he's asking Jack:

"What if you did fix her?" "But what if you did?" "And you don't believe in miracles?"

and when he's fleeing the hatch he tells Jack,:

"if by some miracle you manage to get that computer working again..."

both exchanges are ended with see ya in another life, yeh and both miracles happen.

is this a red herring or could these be a means of building Jack's faith even without him knowing it?

maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but it popped out at me tonight. In some ways, Desmond could be to Jack what Helen was to John in that they both help to build faith in others. Thoughts?

But what about Ray and his comments from last night's episode? While not in the subjunctive, (I don't believe he's telling the truth, thus perhaps the subjunctive implied) he indirectly affects Eko's faith:

Quote:
RM:I know why you're here friend, but you can just save yourself the trouble, what happened here was not a miracle.

Eko: The doctor that treated your daughter seems to feel differently.

RM: Treated her? You mean tried to cut her open, he's just trying to cover up his own negligence. Did he tell you the whole story? how she supposedly drowned? She fell into a mountain river her body shut down, her body went into hypothermia which made her appear dead.

Eko: And why is your wife convinced otherwise?

RM: Because she's a zealot. All of this, everything she's doing is to spite me.

Eko: Why would she spite you?

RM: Because she knows I'm a fraud because I make my living as a psychic you see that's what I do I gather intelligence on people and I explot it. Everyday I meet people looking for a miracle, desperate to find one but there are none to be had, not in this world anyway

Eko: I will report back to my monsignor that there was no miracle here, your daughter is alive, that is all that matters.

It almost seems like a direct rebuttal to Jack and Desmond's "but what if you did fix her?", as if to imply that maybe what we believe to have been a miracle, with Sarah, was in fact a misdiagnosis.

I think they are connected, through Christian, (surprise, surprise) but I can't figure it out yet. Personal theory, the girl on Christian's table was sacrificed for Ray's daughter's survival
'The "not in this world anyway" is suspicious as well. Very similar to Desmond's another life comment.

Any ideas, or should I have listened to the automated "old Thread warning" notice I have to check?

Ok, so I refuse to let this thread die, but what did you expect from CHRISTIAN SHEPHERD's biggest fan?;)

Since the finale, I have been trying to figure out if the David Hume reference in Desmond's name could apply to this thread, and I think it can. I don't purport to understand Hume's anti-causational theory, but I did find a segment from his "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," that I think is tre, tre important. It is a section called "On Miracles" (http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/hume-miracles.html). I will quote what I find most salient here:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

Ok, so in order for David Hume to believe a miracle occurred, he would have to believe that the person giving the testimony was beyond doubt a skeptic. That what was described was not as important as who described it. Since Jack was such a skeptic, arguing with Desmond over the possibility that he could fix Sarah, the fact that he did was a miracle. Caring this logic further, and relating it to the quote above, Jack Did see Christian, his skepticism of seeing him is proof that he did. He's such a skeptic, that him witnessing these events, or being part of these events, justifies them being miracles.

Richard and his wife? Who is to believed? Richard is a skeptic, but a skeptic because he knew what he was doing was a fraud (whether or not he received legitimate info from Hanso/Dharma concerning the people who visited him, he considers himself, a fraud) So if it stands to reason, that the individual who describes a miracle is the determination of the miracle (a skeptic must witness, therefor his lieing would be too much to believe) then someone who disputes the miracle, providing false testimony about it ( treated her? tried to cover up his own negligence) would be justification for the miracle existing. If lieing about it is less miraculous than the miracle itself, the miracle must have happened.


Please, please, please, if there are any Humean experts out there, tell me if my interpretation is incorrect, or pure extrapolation. Since the finale I've been trying to figure out how Hume relates to the subjunctive and the ideas we've discussed on this thread, and this is the only idea that has made sense to me.

Hopefully todell will post the smarty pants comment about locke and eko that we discussed to back me up some....

Whoa... That kind of connection remind me of my Literary Analysis Classes, a thin line between the past and the present.

So that is why they are called...

the powers that be

cmcdtv, you may have just saved me. Bless you!

My faith in the writers may be restored.

Ok, so I refuse to let this thread die, but what did you expect from CHRISTIAN SHEPHERD's biggest fan?;)

Since the finale, I have been trying to figure out if the David Hume reference in Desmond's name could apply to this thread, and I think it can. I don't purport to understand Hume's anti-causational theory, but I did find a segment from his "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," that I think is tre, tre important. It is a section called "On Miracles" (http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/hume-miracles.html). I will quote what I find most salient here:



Ok, so in order for David Hume to believe a miracle occurred, he would have to believe that the person giving the testimony was beyond doubt a skeptic. That what was described was not as important as who described it. Since Jack was such a skeptic, arguing with Desmond over the possibility that he could fix Sarah, the fact that he did was a miracle. Caring this logic further, and relating it to the quote above, Jack Did see Christian, his skepticism of seeing him is proof that he did. He's such a skeptic, that him witnessing these events, or being part of these events, justifies them being miracles.

Richard and his wife? Who is to believed? Richard is a skeptic, but a skeptic because he knew what he was doing was a fraud (whether or not he received legitimate info from Hanso/Dharma concerning the people who visited him, he considers himself, a fraud) So if it stands to reason, that the individual who describes a miracle is the determination of the miracle (a skeptic must witness, therefor his lieing would be too much to believe) then someone who disputes the miracle, providing false testimony about it ( treated her? tried to cover up his own negligence) would be justification for the miracle existing. If lieing about it is less miraculous than the miracle itself, the miracle must have happened.


Please, please, please, if there are any Humean experts out there, tell me if my interpretation is incorrect, or pure extrapolation. Since the finale I've been trying to figure out how Hume relates to the subjunctive and the ideas we've discussed on this thread, and this is the only idea that has made sense to me.

Hopefully todell will post the smarty pants comment about locke and eko that we discussed to back me up some....

I just think this is so brilliant, and wish I could add something more to it...I know we talked about Locke/Eko and their similar crisis of faith and how it all relates to this and the Humian concepts of miracles, but I'm unsure how it all fits, still.

But! I do have something to add, sissy! Subjunctive tense--expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity and statements that are contrary to fact. What if? What if? What is possible?

What if you did?

From some thoughts that I put together on Punky's Transhumanist thread (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=30126) about the Enlightenment and Transhumanism (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/80/):

The Age of Enlightenment can be said to have started with the publication of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, “the new tool” (1620), in which he proposes a scientific methodology based on empirical investigation rather than a priori reasoning. Bacon advocates the project of “effecting all things possible,” by which he meant the achievement of mastery over nature in order to improve the condition of human beings. The heritage from the Renaissance combines with the influences of Isaac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Marquis de Condorcet, and others to form the basis for rational humanism, which emphasizes science and critical reasoning – rather than revelation and religious authority – as ways of learning about the natural world and the destiny and nature of man and of providing a grounding for morality. Transhumanism traces its roots to this rational humanism.

What is possible? What if?

And, of course, the title on one of my favorite unconfirmed (but undenied) websites: oceanicairlines.com: Possibility...

Re: the subjunctive...here is the transcript of "The Journey" (http://www.lost-theseries.com/transcripts.php?epid=23), the first LOST clip show which covers the first 20 epis of Season 1. Much of the narrative begins with "What if...", so I thought I'd post it here. I'll come back with the other clip shows if I find transcripts and that they focus on the subjunctive.

Whoa... That kind of connection remind me of my Literary Analysis Classes, a thin line between the past and the present.

I wanted to revive this thread and when I saw jpbila's post I knew it had to be quoted, emphasis added by me.

But! I do have something to add, sissy! Subjunctive tense--expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity and statements that are contrary to fact. What if? What if? What is possible?

What if you did?


What is possible? What if?

And, of course, the title on one of my favorite unconfirmed (but undenied) websites: oceanicairlines.com: Possibility...

What is possible, indeed. It would appear though that there is a limit on how much the subjunctive and the individual can affect due to course correction, isn't there?

So going back to the original question in the thread, is Desmond using the subjunctive and affecting the future when he tells Jack "If by some miracle you get that computer working" because he's experienced it before and saying it is his realization of this, or does saying it make the computer work in this case? I'm not even sure of what I'm asking here...

Hey cm,

because he's experienced it before and saying it is his realization of this

Do you mean that he's had a premonition of (or lived through) Jack fixin' the computer before in the above quote?

Hey cm,



Do you mean that he's had a premonition of (or lived through) Jack fixin' the computer before in the above quote?


Yes I think I do. I started the thread to try and figure out why Desmond is seemingly able to use the subjunctive to change or predict the future. Now is he doing that with Jack, or does he know that Sarah will be saved by Jack, which is why he persistently asks and why he gives Jack the code? And was his see you in another life, a comment by the desmond that had made the choice to go to the island, or the Desmond that had ended up at the island?

In other words, is the Desmond that we've seen with others (Libby and Jack I suppose) the Desmond whose been to the island, or not? Ans does it matter?

cm,

Like you I'm not really sure either. It's an interestin' question. Personally, I'd like to think that the Des we've seen with Jack and Libby is the Des that is on the Island. But, I just don't know.

I wanted to revive this thread and when I saw jpbila's post I knew it had to be quoted, emphasis added by me.



What is possible, indeed. It would appear though that there is a limit on how much the subjunctive and the individual can affect due to course correction, isn't there?

So going back to the original question in the thread, is Desmond using the subjunctive and affecting the future when he tells Jack "If by some miracle you get that computer working" because he's experienced it before and saying it is his realization of this, or does saying it make the computer work in this case? I'm not even sure of what I'm asking here...
Welcome, back, cmcdtv!

I think Des was (and is) able to glimpse alternate future possibilities...and encouraged Jack because he could see that one of the possibilities was Jack saving Sarah. So, in a more traditional way, he was giving Jack faith in himself. Or, said differently, he was encouraging Jack to "think positively". Jack was "down", and at a lower vibration. Des said "you've got to lift it up", perhaps meaning that Jack needed to vibrate at a higher vibration (more positive).

But on a quantumly spiritual level, Des was helping nudge the ripple in the direction of saving Sarah, because he could see that it could happen (and Jack couldn't). So I think that Des was instrumental in Sarah's miraculous recovery.

It is a bit like the butterfly effect, except that Des is able to see alternate possibilities of the butterfly effect. And that makes me wonder if all of the alternate possibilities are real, and actually exist. Or, is it that the only "path" through the possibilities that is real, is the unique one that is actually taken?

It is a bit like the butterfly effect, except that Des is able to see alternate possibilities of the butterfly effect. And that makes me wonder if all of the alternate possibilities are real, and actually exist. Or, is it that the only "path" through the possibilities that is real, is the unique one that is actually taken?

Great thread -- I'm glad it was revived, as I missed it the first time. Not to jump in, but I think that the fact that the old lady said that they'd all be dead if Desmond didn't take that path implies that the only real path is the one actually taken. I think.:confused: