Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
http://pdp11.nitemarecafe.com/forum/
Killthesmiley wrote: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.
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...Mirage wrote:Killthesmiley wrote: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?
). 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 
Mirage wrote:So I don't suppose anyone went nerdy and immediately thought of a casualty loop, did they?Gah, it made sense to me before!!
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.)Sheikh Gomelez wrote: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.
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 wrote: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...Mirage wrote:Killthesmiley wrote: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?
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
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)
IMHO, going nerdy is a whole lot sexier!Sheikh Gomelez wrote: 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...
I think he "knew" he was in a loop; he had, after all, talked to the old woman, and that bothered him.Mirage wrote: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.
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.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.
The SheikhBot wrote: ZOMG its teh reefer madness!
) 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.Mirage wrote: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
), 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.