*SPOILER WARNING* LOST

[Killthesmiley]

So I'm FINALLY caught up...

all i can say is what the critics are saying i'm agree with....WTF????

I'm so...boggled...my head hurts.

[Mirage]

So I'm FINALLY caught up...

all i can say is what the critics are saying i'm agree with....WTF????

I'm so...boggled...my head hurts.

*pets* Aww, bebeh.

What questions can we answer for you?

[Killthesmiley]

So I'm FINALLY caught up...

all i can say is what the critics are saying i'm agree with....WTF????

I'm so...boggled...my head hurts.

*pets* Aww, bebeh.

What questions can we answer for you?

No questions needed answers...i'm just boggled why the would write that...it makes absolutely no sense with the story...like it used to be somewhat wierd but in a realistic way...now its just like....dude. i need to be stoned to what this...

Weeelllll......gots to wait for the next episode...

BTW: Yup, my guessing is charlie was supposed to die that first initial incident. My guess is everyone was supposed to die, but Jack was there to save them, when he wasn't supposed to be there (because remember he technically isn't supposed to be on the plane, because they weren't going to let him on ). And fate is trying desperately to correct itself, but people are there stopping it. So Lost is completely about the fight that we constantly go through trying to stop what fate is writen out for us

Dharma : the right way of conduct. The principle or law that orders the universe. One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made. conformity to religious law, custom, duty, or one's own quality or character. What, by human nature, we conform to in order to understand our fate.

Dharma Initiative: The initiative to keep fate as is, or set it straight.



(taken from some research compiled of a few fan sites, wikipedia and dictionary.com)

[Cuddlebunni]

Didnt the preview for next weeks episode say that some questions will be answered?

I dont really remember, But I could have sworn it said that.

I sure hope so!

[Mirage]

What's really ironic in the who was supposed to die arguements is that the character of Jack was supposed to die in the first episode.

[Sheikh Gomelez]

So I don't suppose anyone went nerdy and immediately thought of a casualty loop, did they? Gah, it made sense to me before!! Cripes, I'm a dork.

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.

B therefore A-- for example, I go back in time (A) and inadvertently do something (B) that ensures that I will go back in time (A)-- is an example of a causality loop. B comes first, chronologically. (We might be tempted to read the problem as A therefore B, but B is the cause of my going back to that point; it's something I want to change or examine, but I in fact have to cause B to ensure the timeline working out the way it does, so that I can go back... As B is in the past in this example, we can describe B as the cause of my going back, even though I cause B.)

If such loops exist, we might think of the other example-- if this doesn't kill him today, that will kill him tomorrow-- as a modification of this sort of causality. In this example, the death is predestined, and that "fated" outcome ensures that something will accomplish it. The fact that it's "fated" causes it to happen; how it happens is, paradoxically, the effect. Has to do with the sorts of models I was discussing, and what's logically consistent in a given system... Predestination, a fixed timeline with either no free will or at best limited free will-- a delaying of the inevitable. Hence my mentioning the P.O.V. of an observer outside the system, for whom the delays would simply be part of an equation.

Maybe I went nerdy a long time ago. I figure it's something like going native...

[martha]

So I'm FINALLY caught up...

all i can say is what the critics are saying i'm agree with....WTF????

I'm so...boggled...my head hurts.

*pets* Aww, bebeh.

What questions can we answer for you?

No questions needed answers...i'm just boggled why the would write that...it makes absolutely no sense with the story...like it used to be somewhat wierd but in a realistic way...now its just like....dude. i need to be stoned to what this...

Weeelllll......gots to wait for the next episode...

BTW: Yup, my guessing is charlie was supposed to die that first initial incident. My guess is everyone was supposed to die, but Jack was there to save them, when he wasn't supposed to be there (because remember he technically isn't supposed to be on the plane, because they weren't going to let him on ). And fate is trying desperately to correct itself, but people are there stopping it. So Lost is completely about the fight that we constantly go through trying to stop what fate is writen out for us

Dharma : the right way of conduct. The principle or law that orders the universe. One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made. conformity to religious law, custom, duty, or one's own quality or character. What, by human nature, we conform to in order to understand our fate.

Dharma Initiative: The initiative to keep fate as is, or set it straight.



(taken from some research compiled of a few fan sites, wikipedia and dictionary.com)

Hurley really wasn't supposed to be on the plane either, when you think about it. Didn't he run out of gas on the way to the airport, and ran into a few other obsticales on the way? He hasn't really had any near death experiences like Charlie though.

[Killthesmiley]

yup exsactly!

Hurley isn't supposed to be there either...

there are a bunch of people who shouldn't be there because of typical rules and regulations and the way things work in the world, but for some reason theres a glitch, there was aknot that messed everything up. If these people weren't there, everyone would have died.

[Mirage]

BULLSHIT!!

I just typed out this long ass response and then I pressed the wrong button and it went bye bye. GAHHHHH!

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.

B therefore A-- for example, I go back in time (A) and inadvertently do something (B) that ensures that I will go back in time (A)-- is an example of a causality loop. B comes first, chronologically. (We might be tempted to read the problem as A therefore B, but B is the cause of my going back to that point; it's something I want to change or examine, but I in fact have to cause B to ensure the timeline working out the way it does, so that I can go back... As B is in the past in this example, we can describe B as the cause of my going back, even though I cause B.)

If such loops exist, we might think of the other example-- if this doesn't kill him today, that will kill him tomorrow-- as a modification of this sort of causality. In this example, the death is predestined, and that "fated" outcome ensures that something will accomplish it. The fact that it's "fated" causes it to happen; how it happens is, paradoxically, the effect. Has to do with the sorts of models I was discussing, and what's logically consistent in a given system... Predestination, a fixed timeline with either no free will or at best limited free will-- a delaying of the inevitable. Hence my mentioning the P.O.V. of an observer outside the system, for whom the delays would simply be part of an equation.

Maybe I went nerdy a long time ago. I figure it's something like going native...

IMHO, going nerdy is a whole lot sexier!

Ok, lets see if I can remember my nonsensical ramblings. When Desmond turned the failsafe key he went back in his past. So to try and change the future and therefore save Penny he doesn't propose to her--in fact, he breaks it off. He's hoping that this will change the course of the future. What he doesn't know is that he's in a predestined loop, so no matter what he does, what variables he changes, the end result is going to be the same. But at the end, he says to Charlie (paraphrasing), "No matter what you do, it can't change." So he realizes that no matter what monkey wrenches he tries to throw at it, his predestined loop is gonna be just that, pre-destined.

While both of my posts were shambles of anything that made SENSE, this one is, if possible, worse than my first one. If you can get anything out of that, congrats.

[Sheikh Gomelez]

What he doesn't know is that he's in a predestined loop, so no matter what he does, what variables he changes, the end result is going to be the same.

I think he "knew" he was in a loop; he had, after all, talked to the old woman, and that bothered him.

BUT, see what I said about the cricket bat hitting him.

I don't think he was "really" in the past. I think a lot of the events that we saw happened in the past, but I think Desmond was "talking to himself" in a way, "reliving" the past in another. He was, after all, hit with the cricket bat and presumably knocked unconscious. So how could Desmond remember the same person hitting with bartender with the same bat if he altered the outcome, or if the bartender getting hit happened after he was hit? If Desmond's going back in time altered his past, the changes would be part of his memories. The cricket bat hitting him would be inevitable. As it was, the smackdown was a blind spot. For us to get around this, we'd have to propose that the timelines branch in some way for things to be consistent. (Note that causal loops generally deal with a person going back in time to a point at which the traveler didn't exist, so the timeline remains consistent, i.e., the person won't have direct knowledge of the past he or she is a part of.)

What we saw-- or at least I took it this way-- was something being changed by Desmond's actions. Not in the real timeline, but in the vision. In other words, we got a hint that not everything is inevitable.

I think my lengthy (tedious?) post on time travel and the consistency principle detailed my thinking.

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.

Think of it as a variation on It's a Wonderful Life in which the person is shown that nothing can be changed, nothing could ever be different.

ZOMG its teh reefer madness!

[Mirage]

Never tedious!

Ok, I see what you're saying that he might have known he was stuck in the t.v version of Groundhog's Day. But if he did get a glimpse of the fact that not everything is not everything is inevitable, then why did he say to Charlie at the end that no matter what he does, he cant change it(I might, just might, re-watch the episode tomorrow and pull the direct quote. Hell I could probably find it online but I'm lazy)? In fact, why would he tell Charlie that he was supposed to die (not that I'm complaining. Charlie can fall off a cliff and take Kate and Jack with him ) if he has even the smallest chance that he can change Charlie's fate? (You know, fate, like the things he had written on his bandage rings? )

Also, did you notice that when Desmond met Charlie (and he was singing Oasis, nice touch) his sign said something like blah blah blah donations Charlie Hieronymous Pace?

Yeah, this show rocks on so many levels.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot--the red sneakers!! Another Wizard of Oz refrence (the first being "Henry Gale" in his balloon) which could hint towards an idea of an alternate realty?

[Sheikh Gomelez]

Never tedious!

Ok, I see what you're saying that he might have known he was stuck in the t.v version of Groundhog's Day. But if he did get a glimpse of the fact that not everything is not everything is inevitable, then why did he say to Charlie at the end that no matter what he does, he cant change it(I might, just might, re-watch the episode tomorrow and pull the direct quote. Hell I could probably find it online but I'm lazy)? In fact, why would he tell Charlie that he was supposed to die (not that I'm complaining. Charlie can fall off a cliff and take Kate and Jack with him ) if he has even the smallest chance that he can change Charlie's fate? (You know, fate, like the things he had written on his bandage rings? )

Because to do so would imply that Desmond is responsible for his own life as well. It would imply that choice informs and shapes outcomes.

And Desmond is a coward.

[Killthesmiley]

its interesting...

Heroes kind of plays on the theory that Time is like playing in a straight line like this:

|
|
|
|

Lost on the other hand I find is playing that every second overlaps the other..

so like if they were slides it would be like this:

| | | | | | |

(ech line representing a second)

[Mirage]

You're amazingly fast. I'm in awe of your lightning fingers.


But Desmond isn't a coward anymore. Atleast, I don't think so. He turned the failsafe key (I almost wrote sailfafe ), thinking that he'd have a very good chance that he would die. So hasn't he kinda redeemed himself? I'm way confused, and mind you, I was drinking heavily as I watched this, so perhaps a re-watching is in order.

[Mirage]

Speaking of Heroes, my mom tried to tell me today that one of Mohinder's friends was in this episode (the Indian guy with the cute smile)....I think she's nuts.