The "Understanding time travel mechanics" thread

Sad Professor

(Please note: 5x11 hasn't aired on RTE yet so mention of it should be avoided in here until Sunday. People who haven't seen this ep yet might want to be careful.)

There's been a lot of discussion of this in the episode threads so I thought it would good idea to start a thread dedicated to it. If anyone has any questions or is confused by any aspect of the time travel this season, this is the place to ask. This is my interpretation of the time travel mechanics, at least as they apply to this season, lets leave out the Desmond-memory stuff for now until we see where the writers are going with it.

Now, obviously the writers can invent all sorts of different rules for the use of time travel in the show, but what we've seen so far this season broadly correlates with what would be considered a "causal loop".

The key word here is "causal" (cause). A lot of people will see loop and think "Oh time is in a loop and his happening over and over again." This implies alternate timelines. No — time is not in a loop and there are no alternate timelines. Time is relative to human experience. There is one timeline and the events in it happened once and once only.

It's cause and effect that are in a loop. But from the p.o.v. of human experience all these events only happened once. It's just that 1977 is the past for some characters and the future for others.

Now this is where people start to get confused and say "but wait if Richard meets a time travelling Sawyer in 1974, what would stop him from killing him in 2004 and changing time?"

And the answer to this question is that from a free will perspective there's nothing stopping Richard from deciding *to want* to kill Sawyer in 2004, except it wouldn't happen. Because free will in this situation is an illusion and everything, including Richard *wanting* to kill Sawyer, has already happened, therefore it can't change.

Here's an example of a causal loop:

—A man comes home from work to discover that his wife was killed in a car crash. She crashed into a tree. He is devastated and builds a time machine so he can go back in time and save her. He travels back to the day of the crash and follows her to work. As she approaches the place of the accident, he calls her on her mobile phone and tells her to pull over. She refuses; he then tells her he is from the future and that she's going to die if she doesn't stop. She gets such a fright, she careens off the road and crashes into a tree.—

So it was the man's very act of going back in time and *trying to change the past* that actually caused everything to happen the way it did. He didn't change anything.

Anyone want to add to (or dispute) any of this?

me-skywalker

OK so what if they cant get themselves back to pre time-travel original( O815 2004 time). they will all be there obviously 30ys older but will they all die when the plane comes along and crashes on the island? as their time has then caught up with itself?

somuj

Sad Professor wrote: »

—A man comes home from work to discover that his wife was killed in a car crash. She crashed into a tree. He is devastated and builds a time machine so he can go back in time and save her. He travels back to the day of the crash and follows her to work. As she approaches the place of the accident, he calls her on her mobile phone and tells her to pull over. She refuses; he then tells her he is from the future and that she's going to die if she doesn't stop. She gets such a fright, she careens off the road and crashes into a tree.—

So it was the man's very act of going back in time and *trying to change the past* that actually caused everything to happen the way it did. He didn't change anything.

Anyone want to add to (or dispute) any of this?

Thats a paradox and could nt really happen, in the very first instance of this event there would have been no reason to go back in time to ring his wife as she would not have crashed because he had not gone back in time to save her

Niall0

me-skywalker wrote: »

OK so what if they cant get themselves back to pre time-travel original( O815 2004 time). they will all be there obviously 30ys older but will they all die when the plane comes along and crashes on the island? as their time has then caught up with itself?

why would they die, there would just be two versions of them on the island.
They didnt meet as we would have seen it already.
I dont think they will stay on the island in the 70s, theyll probably find a way back to 2007 where sun is.

Sad Professor

somuj wrote: »

Thats a paradox and could nt really happen, in the very first instance of this event there would have been no reason to go back in time to ring his wife as she would not have crashed because he had not gone back in time to save her

Read my post again. It's not paradox. A paradox is when time is changed. In my example nothing is changed. There was no first instance of the event. It always happened that way. The time traveller was predestined to go back in time. It's a causal loop - cause and effect are in a loop. It's a totally paradox free type of time travel.

The point of my example was to show how, by wanting to change time, the time traveller can often end up being the cause of the event they are trying to change.

don ramo

when he goes back in time he thinks he will prevent teh accident but in trying to prevent it hes caused it, so time isnt altered in any way, cause thats what happened anyway,

like jack thinking if he leaves ben die his life would play out diffferent and maybe better, but in doing what he done and not operating he let events accour like they should, if he did operate on ben, and saved him, he would have changed what happened, but he didnt, so noting changed,

somuj

Sad Professor wrote: »

Read my post again. It's not paradox. A paradox is when time is changed. In my example nothing is changed. There was no first instance of the event. It always happened that way. The time traveller was predestined to go back in time. It's a causal loop - cause and effect are in a loop. It's a totally paradox free type of time travel.

The point of my example was to show how, by wanting to change time, the time traveller can often end up being the cause of the event they are trying to change.

it couldnt have always happened dat way. there would have to have been a first instance when time began and in the first instance he would have had no reason to build the time machine(dat is if time exists at all)

Anima

Yeah that last episode left that impression on me as well. I guess it means that the losties will eventually leave the 1970s as they're not on the island in 200x when the plane crashes. Its a nice avenue the writers have taken, really opens the story up and leaves us not knowing what the hell might happen.

Anima

Somuj, there is no first instance or change to the timeline. It always happened that way. A single straight line. He was always going to build the time machine and his wife was always going to hit the tree.

don ramo

Anima wrote: »

Somuj, there is no first instance or change to the timeline. It always happened that way. A single straight line. He was always going to build the time machine and his wife was always going to hit the tree.

just like the time machine (the new one) he goes back 3-4 times, but hes GF dies each time, but in a different way, it was just her faith,

somuj

don ramo wrote: »

just like the time machine (the new one) he goes back 3-4 times, but hes GF dies each time, but in a different way, it was just her faith,

the time machine was a different situation. the event from his past influenced him to create the time machine in his future. Therefore if he changed the event from the past he would have had no reason to create the time machine.

somuj

Anima wrote: »

Somuj, there is no first instance or change to the timeline. It always happened that way. A single straight line. He was always going to build the time machine and his wife was always going to hit the tree.

current theory is that space time began at the big bang. So yes there would have to be a first occurence of everything.

Is time as a seperate entity real at all??

Sad Professor

somuj:

As far as current factual science is concerned, what you are saying is correct. According to the rules of causality, cause must always precede effect. However, this means time travel into the past is impossible.

But this is science-fiction which assumes time travel is possible. And under the rules of a "causal loop" theory, there is no first instance or first version of events. History is written. It ALWAYS happened that way. So my example is valid and is not a paradox.

Daroxtar

Sad Professor wrote: »

somuj:

As far as current factual science is concerned, what you are saying is correct. According to the rules of causality, cause must always precede effect. However, this means time travel into the past is impossible.

But this is science-fiction which assumes time travel is possible. And under the rules of a "causal loop" theory, there is no first instance or first version of events. History is written. It ALWAYS happened that way. So my example is valid and is not a paradox.

I think that the above statement illustrates why its possible that the events which are happening now in 1977 never happened before in 1977. We are using science fact to back up science fiction. Science fiction by its nature is not fact so there is no reason for it to follow conventional thinking and rules.

I accept that your example is valid but i also put it to you that due to this being fiction it is entirely plausible that there are multiple interconnected timelines running in sync with each other.

cooker3

Daroxtar wrote: »

I think that the above statement illustrates why its possible that the events which are happening now in 1977 never happened before in 1977. We are using science fact to back up science fiction. Science fiction by its nature is not fact so there is no reason for it to follow conventional thinking and rules.

I accept that your example is valid but i also put it to you that due to this being fiction it is entirely plausible that there are multiple interconnected timelines running in sync with each other.

Yeah but the writers have gone to great pains to point this is not how it works so that would just contradict everything they have said the last few months and have written within the show so far.

homerun_homer

don ramo wrote: »

when he goes back in time he thinks he will prevent teh accident but in trying to prevent it hes caused it, so time isnt altered in any way, cause thats what happened anyway,

like jack thinking if he leaves ben die his life would play out diffferent and maybe better, but in doing what he done and not operating he let events accour like they should, if he did operate on ben, and saved him, he would have changed what happened, but he didnt, so noting changed,

Nope, the writers have established that you cannot change these things, remember Mrs Hawking's first appearance to Desmond in the Jewelers?? No matter how many time Des saved Charlie, it was his fate to die.

If Jack decided to help Ben he wouldn't have been able to fix him, the powers that be wouldn't allow it, and still Kate and Sawyer would end up chancing their arms to bring Ben to the Others.

The only difference with Jack helping and not helping is that he has pissed people off by not helping out.

uncleoswald

homerun_homer wrote: »

Nope, the writers have established that you cannot change these things, remember Mrs Hawking's first appearance to Desmond in the Jewelers?? No matter how many time Des saved Charlie, it was his fate to die.

If Jack decided to help Ben he wouldn't have been able to fix him, the powers that be wouldn't allow it, and still Kate and Sawyer would end up chancing their arms to bring Ben to the Others.

The only difference with Jack helping and not helping is that he has pissed people off by not helping out.

And who are the "powers that be"? I donno, this whole "course correction" philosophy sounds so hokey. I don't really blame the writers though, you can't take time travel too seriously as which ever way you approach it there will be holes.
I have trouble with the notion that Jack could have thought to himself "okay I will help Ben" but that "fate" would intervene to mess that up some how and they still would have needed help from the hostiles. I prefer to think that Jack simply always refused to help, that this is simply how it played out once, and therefore for eternity. I know they have already used the "course correction" mumbo jumbo with regard to Charlie but since that involved Desmond seeing into the future I felt that was more fantasy based so was easier to stomach, now they seem to be passing it off as a Sci-Fi standard, which its not. The same goes for the episode in which Desmond appeared to go back in time, it seemed to be happening in his head. But they did laid the groundwork for fate/course correction here. At least that would point to the fact they had this time travel story in mind from at least the very start of season 3.

The other way they could have gone is to allow someone to change the future but since we are also viewing characters in the future (sun et all)that haven't been affected we know this isn't the case.

me-skywalker

Why is it that the only way off the island is by turning the wheel?

and why is it that turning the wheel moves the island in time but stoppin it keeps it in that time. the next step would be to move the wheel forward so they can move forward in time, but then that would make woever oved it leave the island..... :-S

Surely the whole season is leading upto the point where Faraday and Chang from the first episode unlock the wheel from behind the wall and he uses it and thats how he is off the island.....

homerun_homer

The wheel isn't the only way, they use the submarine in Dharma and we know that Naomi arrived in the helicopter & the lads could used the boats (Michael and Walt, Freighter folk and islanders) when they go to and from the island in a certain bearing.

Jack most likely always refused to help. but if he had the option to change his destiny like Desmond tried to when Mrs Hawking talked him out of buying the engagement ring, then fate should end up the same and Ben would still survive & grow up to be who he is now.

me-skywalker

homerun_homer wrote: »

The wheel isn't the only way, they use the submarine in Dharma and we know that Naomi arrived in the helicopter & the lads could used the boats (Michael and Walt, Freighter folk and islanders) when they go to and from the island in a certain bearing.

I know that obviously.. the point is WHY?? is it that the wheel can jump them off the island while it simultaneously makes time travel... just seems like bad writing... cause they needed to invent a 'way' to get them off the island just reeks of poo!

HOB-it

Actually its quite simple really. Dont use words like "it was always this way" or "for eternity" - this is confusing and makes it seem like all these events happen over and over again. They dont. If you think of the chronological timeline of events on the island from say Jacks point of view then it makes more sense. Think about this as if you were a casual observer watching the island from outer space over a period of 30 yrs. Begin in 1970

1970 - Jack appears on the island from mid air. poof there he is - just appeared on the island out of mid air. Hes able to talk about future events - argue about the timeline with Hurley and even refuse to operate on Ben - a young boy who has no idea who he is. After this we dont know what happened to jack as we havent seen it yet but when it does get shown lets assume he dies. (not a spoiler - just for this example).


Then in 2004 - Jack appears again on the island again but this time via a plane crash. Hes younger now ( by 3 years) and doesnt know anything about the 1970 Jack because thats in HIS future - he hasnt done it yet. However - because its time travel - if jack had his picture taken in 1970 - and that picture was lying around for 30 years - Jack in 2004 would be able to see himself in this picture. However it is 3 years in the future for him but 30 years in the past for everyone else. Similarily if he made a video of himself in 1970 and watched it in 2004 - he would be watching his future self in the past.

Thus in 2004 - the past is the past. The reality Jack knows in 2004 is culmination of all past events - what ever happened has happened for the reality Jack experiences in 2004 to actually exist. Jacks future decision to not operate on young ben in 1970 had already happened in 2004 - yet ben survived it - thus showing that you have free will to choose what you want but because its in the past you have the benefit of foresight. No matter what you choose you will be made aware of it in the futre - thus giving the illusion of fate. Fate cant make you do anything you dont want to do.

So for Jack the order of his life was

1. Born in 1967 (for example) in some city in America
2. Becomes a doctor
3. In 2004 crashes on the island - spends 100 days and then gets off
4. In 2007 tries to go back to the island
5. Ends up in the year 1970
6. Dies in 1971 (as per this example - dont know what happens to him)

But for us in outerspace the order of events is

1. Born in 1967
2. 1970 jack appears on the island out of no where
3. 1971 Jack Dies
4. Young Jack becomes a doctor (off island)
5. In 2004 crashes on the island - spends 100 days and then gets off
6. In 2007 tries to go back to the island but goes back in time.

Jack ceases to exist in from 2007 onwards in this example

uncleoswald

me-skywalker wrote: »

I know that obviously.. the point is WHY?? is it that the wheel can jump them off the island while it simultaneously makes time travel... just seems like bad writing... cause they needed to invent a 'way' to get them off the island just reeks of poo!

I know it just doesn't make any sense, I almost hope they don't try to explain it as how could they with out it sounding like a load of bull? Like the giant swinging pendulum used to locate the island :rolleyes:

quote HOB-it Actually its quite simple really. Dont use words like "it was always this way" or "for eternity" - this is confusing and makes it seem like all these events happen over and over again. They dont. If you think of the chronological timeline of events on the island from say Jacks point of view then it makes more sense. Think about this as if you were a casual observer watching the island from outer space over a period of 30 yrs.

Yes from individual characters perspective it can be seen to be a simple straight line. However once you factor in more then one character, such as Jack AND Ben it becomes a seemingly never ending loop that can best be described as having always been this way.

(at this point i tried to create a numbered time line like you did above for Jack AND Ben but I had to give up as it made no sense. Perhaps someone smarter then me could give it a go...)

homerun_homer

me-skywalker wrote: »

I know that obviously.. the point is WHY?? is it that the wheel can jump them off the island while it simultaneously makes time travel... just seems like bad writing... cause they needed to invent a 'way' to get them off the island just reeks of poo!

Yeah ok - you got me there. Think we just have to wait this one out and see what the theory and reasoning behind it all is.

Sad Professor

One thing I want to point out, the "course correction" business is totally different from what we've seen this season and what I've been describing on this thread. Basically the writers have presented us with two types of time travel on the show.

The closed causal loop, as seen this season. You CANNOT change time. Everything has already happened, including you trying to change it. Free will is an illusion.

And the idea of "course correction", as presented in season 3. Where basically you can change time, but fate will intervene to ensure *certain* events still happen. It's a ridiculous concept, frankly. So Charlie dies on Monday. But Desmond foresees it, so he saves Charlie. Then fate intervenes and Charlie dies on Tuesday instead. There's a big difference between Charlie dying on Monday and Charlie dying on Tuesay, and the effect on the timeline would be huge. Plus, it creates an alternate timeline which the writers claimed they wouldn't do.

I don't see anyway to reconcile the two. The writers just changed their minds. From listening to the podcasts you can see the development of their thinking from course correction towards a closed loop. Best explanation imo is that Desmond's flashes were actually visions from the island and not the future.

Anima

I never fully got the course correction thing really. It doesn't seem to make sense. How can you change the future but everything will work out basically the same? What makes something significant enough to warrant correcting? If I move a pen from x to y, will it somehow go back to x in the future? Likewise, if I'm Desmond and I try to shoot someone, will something prevent it from happening, ala what Micheal was experiencing, or what? If I'm Joe Shmoe then I must have always meant to shoot that person.

The course correctioning must only apply to Desmond, and/or people who are outside of the loop aswell because the writers have been saying that things are set in stone and can't be changed. We know that Desmond's past and possibly his future can change so I guess he is the wildcard.

Prufrock

Sad Professor wrote: »

Best explanation imo is that Desmond's flashes were actually visions from the island and not the future.

Maby people who are "special" can change things in the past. We still don't know what makes a person special. Maby they aren't constricted to the same rules of time like everyone else.

jArgHA

What about the causal timetravel theory when a person goes back to a time and place in which they were alive and kicking. There are now two copies of the same person, at different ages. I don't see why this could not occur and why those copies could not interact?

There have been a couple of instances where this could have happened thus far - eg. when Sawyer et el. were jumping around time like a yoyo and he witnessed Claire giving birth - the slightly younger Sawyer was also present on the island at this time walking around (or reading a book) not far away.

Some people have suggested that 'the whispers' may be be used to explain these situations, ie. if you go back to a time and place that you inhabit then the 'past you' cannot see you but can hear whispers associated with the 'future you'. I don't buy into this theory though.

jArgHA

BTW Just came across this - reminded me of Vincent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7986816.stm

oxygen_old

Yea, this course correction stuff is hokey and I hope the loose it asap. There is no conscious fate controlling everything that happens in a time line. Unless your talking about a interventionist God, which is a way different thing. Even if it were the actions of God, why would he want everything happening to happen in a straight time line, I’m sure he can wrap his head around the looping time line and allow us to live by fate, just not in a sequential timeline.

Aside from that, I don’t think its actions of God, that’s all a little deux ex machine. Its poor writing. It led to a couple of cool final destination type episodes, hopefully that’s where they will leave it. I had chalked that down to the Island being able to control tides, lighting etc, and having a go at Charley. Maybe the writers will return to this idea, but I hope they don’t.

After years of back to the future type stuff, Im really liking the idea of this solid time line, that can not be changed no matter what. Its mostly you can only travel back in time (which makes some logical sense, since the future is non existent yet, but the past does exist). Maybe you’re the cause of the effect, maybe you just were not able to change the effect. If you have experienced it, or it is documented, you can not change it, no matter what. Much better examples of this are given in Primer, Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicle’s or the Time travelers wife. I recommend any of these. Those losties have always been in the past, they can die in the past etc, its not a problem. Anything they do in the past, is reflected in the future, or their past. If they meet their past selves in the future(2007), they will remember the meeting.

I presume Ben always new all of those losties would travel back, which is why he wanted them all back on the plane, to keep things ticking along. He didn’t just say “feck it, Im sure all of them will end back there somehow” because he always knew he was the reason all of them were in his past. He was the effect in his own past, if he sat back and done nothing, he would have a different past. (As well as that, I think he didn’t want to risk this theory)

uncleoswald

oxygen wrote: »

I presume Ben always new all of those losties would travel back, which is why he wanted them all back on the plane, to keep things ticking along. He didn’t just say “feck it, Im sure all of them will end back there somehow” because he always knew he was the reason all of them were in his past. He was the effect in his own past, if he sat back and done nothing, he would have a different past. (As well as that, I think he didn’t want to risk this theory)

I suppose the follow up question to that is what if Ben wanted to change the past? Sayid thought he could but failed (not the right word I know.) As far as I understand it no matter what Ben did in the future (when he got off the island) it would have been what lead to his past because his past already happened. If instead of trying to get them on the plane he put his feet up and did nothing or activly tried to stop them getting on the plane, this would be the very thing that ensured that they did end up on the plane because they did end up on the plane. It doesn't stand up to too much scutiny because surley if someone in such a position knew enough and did want to change the past they could if they really really tried, but it is better then"course correction" at least.

PS- A thought just occured that is almost definitly wrong-I wonder if Ben truly understands the time travel and thought he might be able to change the past by getting on the plane not realising he was always on the plane and just didn't travel back in time?

Much better examples of this are given in Primer, Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicle’s or the Time travelers wife.

But not the god awful Terminator 3...

Originally posted by jArgHA
BTW Just came across this - reminded me of Vincent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7986816.stm

From story:

There she lived on a diet of baby goats

:eek: Vincent would never do such a thing!

oxygen_old

uncleoswald wrote: »

I suppose the follow up question to that is what if Ben wanted to change the past? Sayid thought he could but failed (not the right word I know.) As far as I understand it no matter what Ben did in the future (when he got off the island) it would have been what lead to his past because his past already happened. If instead of trying to get them on the plane he put his feet up and did nothing or activly tried to stop them getting on the plane, this would be the very thing that ensured that they did end up on the plane because they did end up on the plane. It doesn't stand up to too much scutiny because surley if someone in such a position knew enough and did want to change the past they could if they really really tried, but it is better then"course correction" at least.

Yea, this logic is hard to write, because, the displaced person knows the past only as the past, but there is nothing they can do about it. In most cases I would say their actions caused the past. (I realize this is all fictional)

There was a small part in the time travelers wife, where he said he was physically unable to do anything to change the future, as in, not able to move if the movement altered the future. This doesn’t stand up to well to scrutiny either, especially considering he was loaded due to his time travelling antics.

uncleoswald wrote: »

PS- A thought just occured that is almost definitly wrong-I wonder if Ben truly understands the time travel and thought he might be able to change the past by getting on the plane not realising he was always on the plane and just didn't travel back in time?

Actually I just remembered, Ben was the only one who didn’t travel back, I wonder what that was about.

uncleoswald wrote: »

But not the god awful Terminator 3...

Awful movie, just awful. I remember I couldn’t get it up for a week after that movie, it was so bad.

Sad Professor

In the case of a causal loop, the key thing to understand is that there is no free will. Ben/whoever might *think* they have free will but they don't.

Okay, forget about time travel for second. There's a determinist philosophy that says every choice you make in your life is predetermined. For example, you have two "choices": A or B. You choose A. Later on, as you reflect on your choice, you believe that you could have potentially chosen B. The Determinist would say no, that is an illusion, that you could never have chosen anything but A. The idea is that everything in the universe is one long chain of events, even human thought and behaviour, and that with a powerful enough computer everything - even what you might be thinking in 20 years time - could be predicted with mathematical certainty.

I haven't read The Time Traveller's Wife but I've heard good things about Primer. 12 Monkeys is a great movie though and probably the best cinematic example of a closed causal loop. The Lost writers have kinda made a mess of it.

homerun_homer

But Doesn't 12 Monkeys hint at the end that sending Bruce Willis back in time eventually worked out for them because the lady beside the bad guy with the virus on the plane was from the future and it meant they were going to prevent the disaster. If they prevent the virus outbreak then they change the future and it's not a casual loop, with the same events happening over with no chance of changing.
Am I wrong in this thinking?

Sad Professor

homerun_homer wrote: »

But Doesn't 12 Monkeys hint at the end that sending Bruce Willis back in time eventually worked out for them because the lady beside the bad guy with the virus on the plane was from the future and it meant they were going to prevent the disaster. If they prevent the virus outbreak then they change the future and it's not a casual loop, with the same events happening over with no chance of changing.
Am I wrong in this thinking?

The future scientists knew they couldn't change time. Their goal in sending Willis back was not to prevent the virus outbreak but to get a pure sample of the original so a cure could be made in the future. The woman scientist on the plane at the end was exposing herself to the virus, which was already out at that point, in order to get that sample.

homerun_homer

It's been so long since I watched that DVD. I remember the great documentary on it and Terry Gilliam asking one of his people if they thought the ending and what it meant was too vague. He wanted it to be a bit more obvious for people to understand.

purple_hatstand

homerun_homer wrote: »

It's been so long since I watched that DVD. I remember the great documentary on it and Terry Gilliam asking one of his people if they thought the ending and what it meant was too vague. He wanted it to be a bit more obvious for people to understand.

Gilliam is as mad as box of frogs - he must be from the future:D

me-skywalker

This whoel course correction really reminds me of Donnie Darko with the stream flowing from his chest and him following along it, basically they way you get from point A - B might be differnet even if you try to change the outcome of point B but you will ALWAYS get to point B. There is 'something' making sure of that, fate? god?

cottz2006

me-skywalker wrote: »

This whoel course correction really reminds me of Donnie Darko with the stream flowing from his chest and him following along it, basically they way you get from point A - B might be differnet even if you try to change the outcome of point B but you will ALWAYS get to point B. There is 'something' making sure of that, fate? god?

It reminded me of donnie darko too:)

Killaqueen!!!

I still don't get who 'can' or 'can't' die in 1977. I know in 'Whatever Happened, Happened'

Miles was insistent that young Ben could've died but seeing as it was Ben's past how is that possible? We know he grew up to be the older Ben we've seen for the last few seasons. Surely it is only the people who travelled back to 1977 i.e Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley etc. that can die because it's their 'present'.

Am I making a blindstakenly obvious statement or is that all wrong?

(Btw it's not a spoiler it's from a couple of episodes back to do with time travel)

uncleoswald

Killaqueen!!! wrote: »

I still don't get who 'can' or 'can't' die in 1977. I know in 'Whatever Happened, Happened'

Miles was insistent that young Ben could've died but seeing as it was Ben's past how is that possible? We know he grew up to be the older Ben we've seen for the last few seasons. Surely it is only the people who travelled back to 1977 i.e Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley etc. that can die because it's their 'present'.

Am I making a blindstakenly obvious statement or is that all wrong?

(Btw it's not a spoiler it's from a couple of episodes back to do with time travel)

I'm pretty sure

Miles

was saying the opposite of that no?

Sad Professor

Miles wasn't talking about Ben. He was talking about himself and the other Losties.

MILES: It doesn't work like that. You can't change anything. You're maniac Iraqi buddy shot Linus. That is what always happened. It's just...we never experienced how it all turns out. [...] But the good news is that Linus didn't die, so that means the kid can't either. He'll be fine.

[...]

HURLEY: Aha! I can't shoot you. Because if you die in 1977, then you'll never come back to the island on the freighter 30 years from now.

MILES: I can die because I've already come to the island on the freighter. Any of us can die because this is our present.

HURLEY: But you said Ben couldn't die because he still has to grow up and become the leader of the Others.

MILES: Because this is his past.

Ben CANNOT die in 1977 because we already know his future and in that future he's alive. Same goes for Richard, Widmore and any younger versions of characters. However, we don't know the future of the time-travelling Losties, therefore, any of them CAN die in 1977.

Killaqueen!!!

Ah right, sorry. My bad. That makes sense!

Monkshee

me-skywalker wrote: »

OK so what if they cant get themselves back to pre time-travel original( O815 2004 time). they will all be there obviously 30ys older but will they all die when the plane comes along and crashes on the island? as their time has then caught up with itself?

I think that maybe the O6 might encounter older versions of themselves on the island when they first arrive in season 1. Remember when the Russian guy with the eye patch said he remembered john locke in season 3.Any one agree?

uncleoswald

Nice try OP but I'm sorry to say I think this thread has kind of failed as there still seems to be loads of confusion as to how the time travel mechanics work.

amjon

Sad Professor wrote: »

Here's an example of a causal loop:

—A man comes home from work to discover that his wife was killed in a car crash. She crashed into a tree. He is devastated and builds a time machine so he can go back in time and save her. He travels back to the day of the crash and follows her to work. As she approaches the place of the accident, he calls her on her mobile phone and tells her to pull over. She refuses; he then tells her he is from the future and that she's going to die if she doesn't stop. She gets such a fright, she careens off the road and crashes into a tree.—

So it was the man's very act of going back in time and *trying to change the past* that actually caused everything to happen the way it did. He didn't change anything.

Anyone want to add to (or dispute) any of this?

But what made the man go back in the very first instance? Does time not have a begining or an end its just a continuous spectrum that has been "going on" for infinity?

thecommander

amjon wrote: »

But what made the man go back in the very first instance? Does time not have a begining or an end its just a continuous spectrum that has been "going on" for infinity?

Exactly. Just the way it always has been, and always will be.

Daroxtar

Just thought i'd throw this theory out there. Its a little bit outdated but its interesting

http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.html

amjon

thecommander wrote: »

Exactly. Just the way it always has been, and always will be.

But in reality what sad Profeesor suggested could never happen because time travel is impossible which is why this show has gone to complete shyte. Its just a rehash of 12 monkeys, thanks for nothing.

Daroxtar

I said this before but I'll copy it here to save re typing:

As best i can explain it, The passage of time is observed by each individual in a linear way. The losties have gone back in time in relation to the island but their own timeline or their "life" if you will is still moving forward. Time itself does not "travel" but because of our interaction with it is percieved by us to be moving whereas it is us that are moving through it. Ben has moved a certain distance along the web of time, Sayid has also moved a certain distance but Sayid's life has now looped around and intersected bens life. If life is like a piece of string that keeps getting longer at the end then by cutting the string the string does not cease to exist. It is just cut. Thats why you cant really change the past but you can change the future version of the past.(i like that last line, i might use it again!)
To really kill ben Sayid would have to kill the present version of him as thats the part of the string that continues moving through time.

Now obviously the writers have sort of explained that ben didnt remember getting shot by Sayid because of him being brought to the temple and all that but i still think the multiple timelines theory holds water.
Linder and Leib said that the whole basis for what is going on could be explained by theories at the boundaries of physics and the idea of the universe fracturing into multiverses seems to fit in with some of whats going on , in my opinion anyway.

If the whole concept of the passage of time is based on each persons relative perception and interaction with the web of time then reality itself is only real to those observing it.
If our minds are filters which we use to steer ourselves through time then we would probably do like all things in nature and follow the path of least resistance. However , though we follow this path, it does not mean we are unable to follow another path. If we follow another path while interacting with other people it can cause them to deviate from their path towards the new one we are on.

TBH, after writing that and re-reading it, it seems like a kind of bhuddist philosophy, which would tie in nicely with the whole Wheel of Dharma thing, so I think either they are mixing philosophy with science or the Bhuddist know something about time travel?

I might be confusing myself here so I'll stop now
but at some stage in the future i'll come back to it yesterday so i can explain it better once i figure it out

uncleoswald

amjon wrote: »

But in reality what sad Profeesor suggested could never happen because time travel is impossible which is why this show has gone to complete shyte. Its just a rehash of 12 monkeys, thanks for nothing.

Yes because smoke monsters and islands that can't be found are entirely plausible. Lost is a sci-fi show, the spiritual mumbo jumbo is a bit more of a problem in my opinion. Whats 12 Monkeys got to do with it? Was it the first story about time-travel? No. Can no one else do it now? Sure 12 Monkeys was just a rehash of Terminator. If the show has misplaced its way it certainly happened before the time travel stuff, I can't imagine anyone sitting throught the turgid season 4 and only now developing a problem with it.

Sad Professor

uncleoswald wrote: »

Nice try OP but I'm sorry to say I think this thread has kind of failed as there still seems to be loads of confusion as to how the time travel mechanics work.

It was a worth a try.

People do seem to have some sort of mental block when it comes to accepting the idea of a causal loop. I've come across full-blown essays on the net of people attempting to explain 12 Monkeys and The Terminator using alternate timelines. They just don't get it.

The funny thing is the idea of a "first instance" is just as problematic since if you follow it back in time it leads you all the way back to the Big Bang and then the question becomes what caused the Big Bang? The collapse of another universe, God, whatever, you're still left with this idea that at some point in history something just popped into existence with no cause or reason. I mean is that any easier to understand than a causal loop?

And science doesn't really have the answer. What preceded the Big Bang is just beyond our comprehension. That means anything is possible. Including the crazy theory that the creation and destruction of our universe may be the same event.