I dont want Charlie to die. But thats one of the things I like about LOST, they are not afraid to kill off main characters, so you never know what the hell is gonna happen.....
I think he's gonna die trying to save Claire or the baby. But then again that may be a bit too predictable.
Cuddlebunni wrote:Seriously! My head hurt after watching.. lol
I dont want Charlie to die. But thats one of the things I like about LOST, they are not afraid to kill off main characters, so you never know what the hell is gonna happen.....
I think he's gonna die trying to save Claire or the baby. But then again that may be a bit too predictable.
Something that has come to my mind is... Was Charlie supposed to die? Remember he was like...DEAD...and Jack wouldn't quit...(cause Jack always Fixes it)...so now the Universe always sets things right..and it's going to claim Charlie eventually. Aye Brother...
charliebrown wrote:I dont want Charlie to die! He is one of my favorite characters!
Any1 else say brotha alot after watching that episode?
Also didnt Penny like at the beginning of this season or the end of last have the plane and found the island or something?
She had some scientists trying to detect the magnetic anomaly that is given from the island when the button was not pushed. SO..they were able to nail it down and Penny is surely mounting a rescue mission to save Desmond.
Got that Brotha?
Also, has anyone contemplated the similarities in Desmond and Penny's father and Jin and Sun's father? Jin went to ask for Sun's hand and was given a job and accepted.. Desmond went to ask for Penny's hand, was offered a job which he refused and was rejected..There's more to explore here..
Cuddlebunni wrote:Yup.. final destination all the way brotha.
I like Lordgreys thinkin... He better contribute to this thread more often.
And where the heck is my MIRAGEY!
Of course..there is the obvious Final Destination parallel...however I believe the concept of death balancing things out in the end if you cheat it was not originated there. I think there have been Twilight Zone episodes to deal with it to one degree or another. Also it has been handled in literature as well.
More specifically, a modification of said principle, one allowing for variance-- a degree of inconsistency within a timeline-- while providing for a single-- causally necessary and ultimately inevitable-- outcome.
A delaying tactic changes nothing, in other words.
Choice delays outcome, but outcome always arrives, and "choice"-- the exercise of free will, an action undertaken in an attempt to divert the outcome-- causes Time to stumble, not to fall, to put this another way.
If you say "balance", you might want to think "equation"...
All I gotta say.
EDIT: Maybe I have a few other things to say...
In case you're wondering, it was the presence of Hawking's Brief History of Time in "Not in Portland" that made me think of Novikov when watching the most recent episode, as Hawking's and Novikov's interpretations of the possibility of time travel conflict.
Hawking doesn't buy the idea of time travel, at least for anything big; Novikov accepts the possibility of time travel but thinks that the traveler can't-- of necessity-- alter the past in a way that threatens the timeline. In Novikov's view, everything follows a logical-- a mathematical-- necessity and remains consistent within a timeline. According to the self-consistency principle, all that matters is that the past is consistent with the timeline of which it is a part. For example, knowing what he did, Desmond might've been able to change the precise angle of the cricket bat hitting the bartender, but he couldn't change the fact of it hitting the bartender. Everything would be consistent.
Variations on the self-consistency principle provide for "delaying tactics" such as those used to "save" Charlie. Even when delayed, a given outcome is bound to occur at some point. So if Desmond "saw" or "heard" an event before it happened, he wouldn't be able to change anything in terms of ultimate outcome, anymore than he could "change" his own past. Or so he thinks. (And why bother with the delays, really, if that's the case?) But such loose or naive interpretations of the self-consistency principle presuppose something like fate-- inevitability, necessary outcomes-- and negate free will. Where a "pure" reading of the self-consistency principle looks at the integrity of a timeline in terms of logical consistency (B follows from A in a consistent way, and so on down the timeline), the variant readings are outcome-based; they suggest the existence of timelines in which a certain outcome is necessary, in which everything moves towards and is consistent with an unavoidable outcome (B therefore A; if this doesn't kill him today, that will kill him tomorrow). The implications are wildly different.
So, was the impact of the cricket bat on Desmond's head part of the past?
And does this remind you of the DHARMA Initiative, the Valenzetti Equation, and the "greater good" concept in a pretty meaningful way?
It seems to me that the real question is, "Are all outcomes predetermined?" After all, leaving aside some snarky interpretations of spacetime, the characters are "in" the present for all intents and purposes, whereas Desmond was-- or thought he was-- "in" the past in his flashback/vision. What made his flashback different from everyone else's?
What's the relationship between past, present, and future?
I guess you could ask, "Do we have free will in the present?" Which is kind of like asking if free will exists at all, as the delaying tactic becomes part of the timeline, becomes part of the equation, from some hypothetical absolute/complete perspective of the timeline. When seen, say, from the viewpoint of a entity outside of spacetime. From such a being's outside-the-system point-of-view, past, present, and future-- including the delays-- might appear as parts of a whole, and that whole might be reducible to a formula or equation, but only from that outside-the-system perspective. And that's without considering whether or not the uncertainty principle applies to this hypothetical observer of our universe. Would basic tenets of quantum physics apply to such an observer, or do such rules apply only within this system, this universe? Could error, indeterminacy, or uncertainty exist within equations derived from seemingly divine observations? We don't know. Maybe we can't know, as we're within the system. Such a perspective would be radically different, radically other from ours. If that makes any sense...
But Desmond isn't God. As we saw, his comprehension is flawed, and the cricket bat hit him in the vision. Somehow, he didn't remember that the bat hit him. He didn't see it coming.
So, did Desmond somehow forget the fact that someone smacked him with a cricket bat, or was he trying to make sense of the present by "reliving" the past in a way that's consistent with his present worldview?
The old woman in the jewelry shop could be a projection of Desmond's subconscious, after all. There are quite a few examples of that sort of thing on the show.
If she is, then her telling Desmond that you can only delay the outcome, that you can never change the result, would be a matter of Desmond talking to himself. And that would tell us more about his character than it would about the workings of the universe.
Could be he has a gift and doesn't want to think it changes anything in any important way.
Let's say that he's a coward. Not necessarily in terms of his actions, but in terms of his perspective.
I don't think we should take any of the vision as literal time travel, but as Desmond "explaining" his gift in terms of his past. I think he wants to opt out of claiming free will while maintaining that he's a good person. He wants to say that he did his bit, he entered the numbers, he saved the world. He did what he was intended to do. But he can't really change anything. Or so he claims.
This should remind us of Eko...
Personally, I think Desmond might die as a result of his attempts to save Charlie. Think of it as a cosmic bitchslap, or a lesson in limited (enhanced, but still human and therefore limited) perspective, or (inadvertent?) heroic redemption.
And Charlie could die of old age. Or from an overdose. Desmond would be right.
Everyone dies eventually...
From the perspective of an observer outside the system, we might all be already dead.
But sometimes, people are good and do the right thing regardless of the crap they spout.
In Desmond's vision, he got the day of the last minute victory wrong.
But it eventually happened, you might respond.
In his vision, he got smacked with a cricket bat.
Somehow, that little detail was a blind spot.
It's a pretty significant detail, too. And it's a change that's pretty inconsistent with the timeline as Desmond "knew" it.
Maybe the inconsistency is a clue.
Maybe he's his own monster. So to speak.
As for time travel and the universe and all that jazz, the implications for free will vary according to the interpretation.
Thought I'd mention these things.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension,
And dissension have begun.
Cuddlebunni wrote:
And where the heck is my MIRAGEY!
Yesterday I went to go take the dog out and she went nuts thinking an empty bag of salt was real (it was amusing at first) and she took off and I fell on my wrist. So between being hungover and a bruised wrist, I decided to take a day off.
I'll post more about Lost after I've read your posts. *snuggles*
Theres my miragey! Awesome find bout the painting stuff!
When I see stuff like that I always wish I was smart and observant enough to discover those things. But its cool to see nonetheless!
So, parallel universe? Widmores connected to claire? (the real babys daddy, oh noes! lol, or just reusing props- that I find doubtful.. especially in a show like this)
Sorry bout your wrist my love. *kisses it to make it better
Hmm I got a couple more things that hurt and need some Bunni kisses...
I don't like to think that a show like Lost that prides themself on easter egg placements would do something like that (Claire's BF's pic) unknowingly. There was a couple of other easter eggs in the episode, like all the different brand names shown during the soccer game on t.v. (Hanso, Apollo Candy, Buddies diapers..).
AND I found something that is just so unbelieveably cool that my inner fan girl is squeeing with nerdy joy:
Uhm, lets see, a casulty loop is like explaining why history doesn't change, it's predestined. So if someone were to somehow jump back in time to stop an event (say a fire, a-la Twilight Zone) would in some way be the catalyst for this future event to happen. He wouldn't be stopping it, he'd be causing it. So it goes back to the free will(David/Desmond Hume)or fate (John Locke) arguement. No matter what this person does to try and change fate, he cant. It's predestined.
And now I'm totally flippin' confusing myself and I think I might have actually mixed two theories together. Sigh.
But thats one of the things I like about LOST, they are not afraid to kill off main characters, so you never know what the hell is gonna happen.....
*snuggles*
Cripes, I'm a dork.