*** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I disagree with this. Time is the constant, not the people in time. I think of each millisecond in time on the circle as a snapshot. Just because 30 year old Hurley travels back to 1977 doesn't mean 1 year old Hurley doesn't exist. If 1 year old Hurley ceases to exist, so does 30 year old Hurley. It just means there are two Hurley's at that same snapshot in time on the circle. That's my opinion anyways.
.

I don't think you can travel back in time and see yourself. Yes a 1 year old Hurley had to exist or there couldn't be a 30 year old Hurley obviously. But if you are able to go back in time and see a younger self of yours, you are talking about an alternative dimension that you have visited and not a point along a line.

The difference is are we talking about 1 time line or altenative dimensions. Indication are leading towards one time line and I doubt you could run into yourslef at a point in time. If we were dealing as time travel totally as an observation like Scrooge with the Ghost of Christmas Past. Yes. If you are talking about interaction in time, No. I think it would be impossible to interact with yourself.

But yes, every milisecond is a snapshot, to a time jumper, you will see various people at various stages of their life, but you won't run into yourself. My speculation of course.

[CMH]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I would agree if there was another dimension that 1954 with the Losties in it is the only 1954 that exists.

Where you might be contradicting yourself is where you mention the 2 Hurleys example. Completely agree id we are talking about multiple dimensions. But if you are talking about there being only 1 time line or in your reference one circle we are dealing with, there can only be 1 version of the person.

This is where we definitely disagree and that's cool. I have a different opinion on time travel. My thought is if time travel was invented today and someone came to me and said, "Would you like to travel through time?" I would never be able to have a conversation with myself prior to this travel. Reason? Because I, at the age of 27, have never met my future self. So, my future self never traveled back in time to greet me. Even if I was given the option to go back and change that, something would go wrong because I can't change the past. Perhaps, my future self has seen me walking, but if I never spoke to him than I could never change that. The only other explanation would be me having had a conversation with my future self and then my future self using one of those gadgets from MIB that made me forget everything.

So, not saying you are wrong. Your opinion on time travel is shared by many. It seems to be the common belief. I just happen to have a different one, and I feel that's the theory that's being carried in Lost. Of course, I could be wrong.

One last thing, I'll go back to Lockes conversation with Alpert. He tells him when and where to meet him as a child. He doesn't say Richard we'll meet when I'm a child and you'll give me a test.

I find that odd because its like Locke was trying to alter Richards actions to meet him. Not recalling that he had already met him as a child. Locke was instructing him where to find him as a child. Can someone explain that? because thats the issue with I'm having with Locke when he goes back in time he's trying to guide people or be guided yet whats happened to him to the point he jumps time has already happened and can't be unwritten.

Well, this goes back to what I said about cause and effect. Locke knows that Richard visits him. Richard of 1954 doesn't know this yet and Richard of 1954 isn't going to know where to find Locke. Something still needs to happen in Richard's past to create the future. So, Locke (whether on his own or through the force of time) tells Richard where to meet him. That cause leads to the effect of Richard knowing where to go to visit Locke when Locke is a young boy.

When Richard visits a young John Locke, that visit was a result of Richard being told by an older Locke where to find him.

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

This is where we definitely disagree and that's cool. I have a different opinion on time travel. My thought is if time travel was invented today and someone came to me and said, "Would you like to travel through time?" I would never be able to have a conversation with myself prior to this travel. Reason? Because I, at the age of 27, have never met my future self. So, my future self never traveled back in time to greet me. Even if I was given the option to go back and change that, something would go wrong because I can't change the past. Perhaps, my future self has seen me walking, but if I never spoke to him than I could never change that. The only other explanation would be me having had a conversation with my future self and then my future self using one of those gadgets from MIB that made me forget everything.

So, not saying you are wrong. Your opinion on time travel is shared by many. It seems to be the common belief. I just happen to have a different one, and I feel that's the theory that's being carried in Lost. Of course, I could be wrong.

Well, this goes back to what I said about cause and effect. Locke knows that Richard visits him. Richard of 1954 doesn't know this yet and Richard of 1954 isn't going to know where to find Locke. Something still needs to happen in Richard's past to create the future. So, Locke (whether on his own or through the force of time) tells Richard where to meet him. That cause leads to the effect of Richard knowing where to go to visit Locke when Locke is a young boy.

When Richard visits a young John Locke, that visit was a result of Richard being told by an older Locke where to find him.

You didn't meet your future self because you couldn't. Yeah we'll just have to see how it plays out. Nothing wrong with having multiple theories, the more the better.

The thing is old Locke is who he is BECAUSE he was visitied by Richard and whatever other events have happened to him. By Locke telling Richard When and Where to meet him as a child implies that Locke thinks that Alpert will not visit him if he doesn't tell him. That implies that Locke thinks History is changeable. That some events would prohibited Richard from doing this.

Thats where it doesn't make sense. If you are talking about a single dimension, the one we know. Everything that happened up until 2004 happened and you can't change that per Hawking. Unless you are Desmond then people can visit you in the past and all of a sudden you'll have that committed to memory in the future but it changed nothing from the point in the past until the present.

[CMH]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Yea, I think that's basically the issue we'll see. Locke was the first to experience this. He was fearful that Richard wouldn't visit him, so he tells him to. But, John Locke doesn't know that his telling Richard is how Richard knew.

Locke didn't affect a thing. He just helped push time to where it was going to go. Similar to Sayid shooting Ben. He thinks that he's going to change the future, but he doesn't (according to what I'm saying). Instead, he's pushing Ben to the man he becomes.

Now, the Losties will be going through the same thing, I bet. I'm sure they are going to be hit with scenario after scenario and they'll think: "Hey, I know that this is what happens in 2003, so I'm going to help avoid that by doing this instead in 1977." Yet, they won't know that what they tried to prevent is what actually helps it all happen.

I know you brought up Butterfly Effect once. I don't think it's anything like that at all. There is no butterfly effect. They think they can create a butterfly effect, but instead, they just created the future they feared.

Because changing the future would create too huge a paradox and time doesn't allow that. What if Sayid killed Desmond in 1986? (an example). That would mean that Desmond never gets to the Island, never misses the timer to push the button, and Flight 815 never crashes on the Island. That would also mean that Sayid could never know about Desmond or have reason to shoot him and then Sayid shooting Desmond dead couldn't happen. Paradox.


I'm curious, why do you believe someone couldn't meet their future self? What leads you to believe this? I feel like that's just a movie idea. I don't understand why I couldn't meet my future self. We both occupy separate space. It's not like one needs to push the other out. We're different people according to time.

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I'm curious, why do you believe someone couldn't meet their future self? What leads you to believe this? I feel like that's just a movie idea. I don't understand why I couldn't meet my future self. We both occupy separate space. It's not like one needs to push the other out. We're different people according to time.

No, I don't think you could meet your future self and interact if you are talking abount 1 unchangeable timeline. You are still 1 entity, 1 consciousness. You are either here or there not both because you are traveling along the line. Now to the Time traveler there would appear to be multiples of different people, the little ben, slightly evil ben, 2007 Maniacal Ben, but there would only be 1 Ben visible at a time depending on the time you were visiting.

If you are talking about alternate dimensions, then yes. Every major decision would creat an alternative universe. This has been somewhat proven that a single beam of light could be bent and be two places at once. The one beam chose path A, the othe path B. In that instance if applied to Human, you could then travel off of Point A at a future time into Point B and see yourself.

[HealyMonster]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

No, I don't think you could meet your future self and interact if you are talking abount 1 unchangeable timeline. You are still 1 entity, 1 consciousness. You are either here or there not both because you are traveling along the line. Now to the Time traveler there would appear to be multiples of different people, the little ben, slightly evil ben, 2007 Maniacal Ben, but there would only be 1 Ben visible at a time depending on the time you were visiting.

If you are talking about alternate dimensions, then yes. Every major decision would creat an alternative universe. This has been somewhat proven that a single beam of light could be bent and be two places at once. The one beam chose path A, the othe path B. In that instance if applied to Human, you could then travel off of Point A at a future time into Point B and see yourself.

you guys are freaking confusing the crap out of me. LOL. I need to go bck and get some more education in me, then revisit this post and hopefully Ill be able to tell what the heck is going on.

[Coug00]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

you guys are freaking confusing the crap out of me. LOL. I need to go bck and get some more education in me, then revisit this post and hopefully Ill be able to tell what the heck is going on.

LOL...that's the beauty of Lost. You have to admit the writers are doing an amazing job driving discussion over their show. We're getting close to 100 posts in this thread since Wednesday's episode.

The best advice I can give you is go back and watch random episodes when you have the time. Its amazing the stuff you'll catch that apply to things we're seeing in episode 5.

[peteykirch]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Time for my mind to be blown once again.

[Lintyfresh85]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I like Myles cause he speaks the truth.

[ASB37]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Time for my mind to be blown once again.

Lost+April Fool's= Uh Oh.

Jack, grow a pair and REALLY don't save him this time.

[Brandon13]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

God, I hope the little bastard dies.

[peteykirch]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Dammit Jack you stepped out of a shower and didn't dry off and put a shirt on? IT'LL BE SOAKED.

[ASB37]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

God, I hope the little bastard dies.

I'll be upset if he isn't just because it'd be a great cliffhanger for the next episode, but I'm not counting on it. LOL at hurley and Miles' convo. Hurely is like me trying to figure out this show.

I'm starting to wonder how their gonna bring back claire, and explain where/what faraday has been doing this whole time.

[ipitythafool25]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Can't post tonight but all I can say is nest week will be.... EPIC

[Pappy Knuckles]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Next week looks sweet. I'm digging this season a lot.