The "Understanding time travel mechanics" thread

Sad Professor · 08-04-2009 06:01PM

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 · 09-04-2009 09:38AM

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 · 09-04-2009 11:05AM

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 · 09-04-2009 02:57PM

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 · 09-04-2009 05:05PM

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 · 14-04-2009 11:35AM

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 · 15-04-2009 11:18PM

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!!! · 16-04-2009 04:00PM

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 · 16-04-2009 04:09PM

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 · 16-04-2009 04:13PM

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!!! · 17-04-2009 06:42PM

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

Monkshee · 22-04-2009 06:18AM

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 · 22-04-2009 04:59PM

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 · 22-04-2009 09:14PM

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 · 22-04-2009 10:37PM

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 · 22-04-2009 11:44PM

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 · 23-04-2009 12:02AM

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 · 23-04-2009 01:08AM

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 · 23-04-2009 09:42AM

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 · 24-04-2009 12:42AM

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.

me-skywalker · 24-04-2009 01:30PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

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.

i understand it i jsut dont like it! i dont accept that we dont have control 'free will' if you please.. because if we dont then it all laeds to a higher being or plans already laid out.

this casual loop - if i go back in time right now and kill my mother before im actually born - will i cease to exist? no because in your theory this is MY present that im living right now.. and reagardles i would be born either way because thats what would have happend. or to say that me killing my mother caused me to be born.... how? by some other woman? or as i said would i cease to exist?

i dont think lost is a case of a casual loop at all.

uncleoswald · 24-04-2009 04:13PM

me-skywalker wrote: »

i understand it i jsut dont like it! i dont accept that we dont have control 'free will' if you please.. because if we dont then it all laeds to a higher being or plans already laid out.

this casual loop - if i go back in time right now and kill my mother before im actually born - will i cease to exist? no because in your theory this is MY present that im living right now.. and reagardles i would be born either way because thats what would have happend. or to say that me killing my mother caused me to be born.... how? by some other woman? or as i said would i cease to exist?

No higher being needed here. If we continue with your mother killing example (sorry mrs-skywalker). So here you are back in time and you decide to kill your mother. Assuming that you didn't simply decide you couldn't go through with it, and that nothing went wrong (maybe you died on the way to do it, maybe she killed you in self defence and never told you the horrific story of the time she killed a crazed man who looked a bit like your uncle Larry) and you successfully killed her and walked away thinking you had successfully changed the future then something else must have happened, such as your mother had a secret twin sister who saw the whole thing, dumped the body, stole her sisters identity and was in fact your real mother. And maybe then she hated you for what you did and treated you terribly therefore making you want to go back in time and kill her.

i dont think lost is a case of a casual loop at all.

Maybe not, I'm almost always wrong about Lost. But I think the episode title "Whatever Happened, Happened" and what happened in it pretty much confirms that they can't change the future. But that does not mean that "fate" intervenes. Fate or a higher power didn't wreck Sayid's attemt to kill Ben, we now know this in fact led to Ben becoming the Ben we now know and love.

That been said I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out that for the last three years Faraday, who was the first to explain about time travel and said the future could not be changed, has been working on a way to prove himself wrong.

me-skywalker · 24-04-2009 04:33PM

uncleoswald wrote: »

No higher being needed here. If we continue with your mother killing example (sorry mrs-skywalker). So here you are back in time and you decide to kill your mother. Assuming that you didn't simply decide you couldn't go through with it, and that nothing went wrong (maybe you died on the way to do it, maybe she killed you in self defence and never told you the horrific story of the time she killed a crazed man who looked a bit like your uncle Larry) and you successfully killed her and walked away thinking you had successfully changed the future then something else must have happened, such as your mother had a secret twin sister who saw the whole thing, dumped the body, stole her sisters identity and was in fact your real mother. She then hated you for what you did and treated you terribly therefore making you want to go back in time and kill her.

but this is the bit that makes it convenient... that you have now brought in a whole load of other coincidences and tangible 'x & y' examples to 'create' a reason for this not to happen.

whereas if you think about the donnie darko route as in the universe is split into 2 and if its not corrected will end that somethin has been displaced and needs to be corrected and their are certain people who can can do these thigns just to restore the world to itself......

so what would happen in my instance when i kill my mother and i find out that she wasnt my mother but was her evil twin and then her evil twin took care of baby me.... whats happens to older me now knowing this information?

uncleoswald · 24-04-2009 04:58PM

me-skywalker wrote: »

certain people who can can do these thigns just to restore the world to itself......

But who decides who these certain people are? Donnie Darko was a pretty theist movie.

'x & y' examples to 'create' a reason for this not to happen.

Not really, there is only "x". And if you think you know what "x" is and try to change it, it will turn out you were wrong in the first place.

so what would happen in my instance when i kill my mother and i find out that she wasnt my mother but was her evil twin and then her evil twin took care of baby me.... whats happens to older me now knowing this information?

Who knows, something must have happened that prevented you using this information otherwise you would not have been in that postition in the first place. This is not a lack of free will, free will caused it to happen.

But look, I know I'm talking crap, because time travel is in reality a load of crap and there will be holes no matter how you do it. When its confined to a 2 hour movie its easier to get away with, logic is less forgiving to a TV show like Lost.

Sad Professor · 11-05-2009 07:27PM

Well I think the last episode provided further evidence that it is indeed a causal loop. Whether the writers will stay true to it or put their own spin on it remains to be seen.

The "magic" compass is a bit problematic but a minor detail - in the latest podcast the writers said they were aware of its lack of origin and it was intentional.

From the looks of it all the time travel madness will end in the finale. I can't say I'll miss it. While it has been great fodder for discussion, it has also caused an awful a lot of confusion.

Anyone got any final thoughts on the time travel heading into the finale?

PirateShampoo · 11-05-2009 07:44PM

Well i think there can only be 2 conclusions to the Time travel story.

A) Jack/Hurley/Sawyer/Jin/Kate/Juleite/Sayid remain in the past

or

They return to 2007.

Also the Roise, Bernard and co where abouts need to be resolved. Has they must be in 1977 with the Others.

cooker3 · 12-05-2009 03:21AM

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well I think the last episode provided further evidence that it is indeed a causal loop. Whether the writers will stay true to it or put their own spin on it remains to be seen.

The "magic" compass is a bit problematic but a minor detail - in the latest podcast the writers said they were aware of its lack of origin and it was intentional.

From the looks of it all the time travel madness will end in the finale. I can't say I'll miss it. While it has been great fodder for discussion, it has also caused an awful a lot of confusion.

Anyone got any final thoughts on the time travel heading into the finale?

Yeah I think Daniels demise heavily suggests the time travelling will be at a end.
It's been a mixed bag I feel. Some of the early episodes were hard to follow when the island was jumping around every second scene. On other hand it was a handy mechanism to show Dharmaville in the 1970's, show Rousseaus backstory and also to help explain how certain people such as Eloise knew so much about what had to happen.

I am still unsure how it will all shake out. On 1 hand having a spilt in time makes it easy to have 2 groups and have concurrent story lines which in the absence of flashbacks or flash forwards makes it more interesting but that requires time travelling and I think that will take away time for what the season should be about and that's answering questions.

On the other hand if they all end up in the same time line presumably 2007. I am not sure how they would split that up or what the main narrative would be. There can't be many flashbacks for them to show as we pretty much know most characters and their backstory well and I can't see them doing flashforwards. Maybe they will have on island and off island action. I guess the war with Ben, Widmore and Ilana group will be prominent. I also hope Desmond has an huge involvement with whatever ends up happening as if not they should have let him and Penny go in the sunset on the boat. He has been badly underused this year.

Daroxtar · 20-05-2009 09:19PM

Just something thats been bugging me for a wee while... When Oceanic 816 crashed in 2004, was it 2004 on the island? Just wondering if it has been asked before or proved that it was.

Bounty Hunter · 20-05-2009 09:23PM

cant remember the year and how long eactley they had been on the island at this stage but we did get to see a calendar and that it was christmass in the constant if you can use that to work it out

Sad Professor · 20-05-2009 09:37PM

Island time and real world time are the same. Island time doesn't move faster or slower or anything like that. So yeah Christmas Eve 2004 on the island is Christmas Eve 2004 in the real world.

The same is true post-wheel-turn. 3 years had passed for the O6 and 3 years had passed on the island — this was confirmed by Richard in "Follow the Leader".

The time differentials we saw last season (the rocket, helicopter trip, etc) were a result of leaving or entering the island at the wrong bearing.

The "Understanding time travel mechanics" thread

Comments