"Whatever happened happened" time travel actually makes perfect sense if you think about it the right way. The only uncertainty is how Desmond fits in and in what sense the "rules" don't apply to him. If he can actually change things and open alternate timelines, then we may be getting into some paradoxes, but if Dan is referring to something else, like *how* he time travels, or perhaps his memory of events (like suddenly remembering Dan's visit 3 years after leaving the island) then "WHH" theory works just fine.
Juliet WAS in 1977 "before" her early 2005 self traveled back in time. "Before" meaning at an earlier year in the grand scheme of time, but it is "after" in relation to her OWN life. In the passage of years, it was in the "past," but it was her future. So if you isolated the year 1977, you would see two Juliet's--her young self and her old self, coexisting.
The problem is our common conception of time. The trick is to realize that everything--past, present, and future--has already "happened." There is one timeline of history and it is completely fixed. It's as if you have the complete history of existence mapped out on a single timeline in front of you. Time is not tensed. There is not objective past, present, and future. Events have "spatial" location on the timeline, like mile-markers on a road, and what is "past" or in the "future" is just relative to the observer. All versions of yourself already "exist" at once, because they already fill up the timeline. When we watch the show, it would be like placing our finger on 2004 and moving it slowly along the line, and in this way time "passes" to us.
Say that we are following the trail of John Locke's life. We place our finger on the day of his birth, in 1956, and begin moving along the timeline, passing through the years. We move along until we hit Frozen Donky Wheel Day in 2005, and we see that he has dropped off the map. He is no longer there when you look further in 2005...but if you look back you will see that he shows up in 1954. And John Locke, at that age, has always been at that spot in 1954. We just weren't looking there.
What we have essentially is that time bent on itself. For the purpose of illustration, here's a way you could imagine Locke's disappearance from 2005 and reappearance in 1954 (I know there were a few time jumps previously, but just for this example we will say he went straight there). At the point where he drops off the map and suddenly appears in 1954, it seems as if the "trail" of Locke's life is disrupted. Meaning, you couldn't trace it out without lifting your finger, because you would hit 2005 and suddenly Locke is back in 1954. What "path" in time does he take to get there?
Imagine that in 2005, when Locke disappears, he "travels" (on the mapped-out timeline) INTO the page, loops around back and lands in 1954. We can't see it because we are just looking two-dimensionally. And that's how all of the events appear when we normally view them. But Locke's life DOES have a continuous path and explanation for how he got there--it just involves opening up further dimensions and expanding our conception of time.
This is much easier to explain visually, but I hope that made a little sense. I am willing go more in depth if you want.
I understand what you means Wayne Jarvis, but let’s said the reason the O5 came back, is to bring back the LB stuck in 1977 back to their real “time line” which year would that be? 2008? the year The O5 come from and or 2005? the year the LF come from? If they all go back in 2008 the LB would go back to a “future” that NOT theirs, because they never lived 2005, 2006 and 2007, and if they all go back in 2005 the O5 will have to live those same years twice!!!
Either way there will be a paradox!
Or the LB are not in the right time line or the O5 are not in the right time line the only solution to avoid that situation would be if the LB go back to 2005 and the O5 to 2008. Oh wait wouldn’t that be a paradox too???
Of course the easier solution would be not to bring anyone back LOL, however that would NOT make the flaws in the TT rules TPTB try to sell us magically disappear! And seeing all the controversies on the boards a lot of us are just NOT Buying!
~~ Jater # 277 ~~ Fox # 239 ~~ The shirt: JeansJack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apratnely it dsoen’t mtaetr waht oder the ltrs in a word are, the olny ipmoratnt tihng is taht the fisrt and lsat ltetre be in the rhigit palce. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can stlil raed it whituot a porbelm. Tihs is bcesue the hamun mnid deos not raed every ltr by itlesf, but the word as a wolhe.
"Whatever happened happened" time travel actually makes perfect sense if you think about it the right way. The only uncertainty is how Desmond fits in and in what sense the "rules" don't apply to him. If he can actually change things and open alternate timelines, then we may be getting into some paradoxes, but if Dan is referring to something else, like *how* he time travels, or perhaps his memory of events (like suddenly remembering Dan's visit 3 years after leaving the island) then "WHH" theory works just fine.
Juliet WAS in 1977 "before" her early 2005 self traveled back in time. "Before" meaning at an earlier year in the grand scheme of time, but it is "after" in relation to her OWN life. In the passage of years, it was in the "past," but it was her future. So if you isolated the year 1977, you would see two Juliet's--her young self and her old self, coexisting.
The problem is our common conception of time. The trick is to realize that everything--past, present, and future--has already "happened." There is one timeline of history and it is completely fixed. It's as if you have the complete history of existence mapped out on a single timeline in front of you. Time is not tensed. There is not objective past, present, and future. Events have "spatial" location on the timeline, like mile-markers on a road, and what is "past" or in the "future" is just relative to the observer. All versions of yourself already "exist" at once, because they already fill up the timeline. When we watch the show, it would be like placing our finger on 2004 and moving it slowly along the line, and in this way time "passes" to us.
Say that we are following the trail of John Locke's life. We place our finger on the day of his birth, in 1956, and begin moving along the timeline, passing through the years. We move along until we hit Frozen Donky Wheel Day in 2005, and we see that he has dropped off the map. He is no longer there when you look further in 2005...but if you look back you will see that he shows up in 1954. And John Locke, at that age, has always been at that spot in 1954. We just weren't looking there.
What we have essentially is that time bent on itself. For the purpose of illustration, here's a way you could imagine Locke's disappearance from 2005 and reappearance in 1954 (I know there were a few time jumps previously, but just for this example we will say he went straight there). At the point where he drops off the map and suddenly appears in 1954, it seems as if the "trail" of Locke's life is disrupted. Meaning, you couldn't trace it out without lifting your finger, because you would hit 2005 and suddenly Locke is back in 1954. What "path" in time does he take to get there?
Imagine that in 2005, when Locke disappears, he "travels" (on the mapped-out timeline) INTO the page, loops around back and lands in 1954. We can't see it because we are just looking two-dimensionally. And that's how all of the events appear when we normally view them. But Locke's life DOES have a continuous path and explanation for how he got there--it just involves opening up further dimensions and expanding our conception of time.
This is much easier to explain visually, but I hope that made a little sense. I am willing go more in depth if you want.
WJ, I applaud you for your effort and what you outlined in your post above is very similar to one of my theories as to where they are going with all of this. But, there’s a big glaring flaw in this logic that I will illustrate below.
When Sawyer popped up out of the brush a few episodes ago and saw Kate helping Claire deliver Aaron, he was actually on the beach at that specific “original Season 1” moment in time. When Locke saw the beam of light (in the same episode), he was banging on the hatch at that specific “original Season 1” moment in time. In this episode, for argument’s sake, let’s agree that Juliet was born in 1970, making her 7 in 1977. Furthermore, let’s say that she was riding her bike or something that any kid might be doing at that specific moment in time when the Juliet we saw in this episode was delivering Amy’s baby- similar to the Sawyer and Locke examples I referenced above. How does anyone explain something I’ve asked repeatedly since last season and to date have never been given a satisfactory answer: since humans are physical beings comprised of matter, how can anyone exist in two different places at any specific moment in time?
Locke even made a passing reference to this in the other episode with the examples I referenced above (with Sawyer and Locke) when he asked Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” This kind of logic is just simply flawed from the get-go because the fact remains that all of these characters were doing something different back in 1977 and a person cannot be in two different places at any specific moment in time. It’s not like we are two-dimensional things (like a photo, or something) where there could be “copies” of ourselves. Juliet was, in fact, doing something else at that “original” specific moment in time in 1977 (just like the Sawyer and Locke examples I referenced) so until someone can explain to me how a person can be in two different places at any specific moment in time, this logic just collapses on itself like a house of cards.
And let’s remember Daniel’s “rule” (paraphrasing from what I believe was the same episode I referenced above): “Time is like a street. You can go backwards or forwards on that street, but you can’t create a new street.” I would argue that a “duplicate” of yourself in any specific moment in time is the ultimate creation of a “new street.”
An Example... there's literally 1000s to choose from.
In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time.
A person in the Present / Future can go to the Past cause its already happened... As long as s/he doesn't interfere with Past events everything in the Present / Future will still happen as it rightfully should.
(But somebody in the Past cant go to the Present / Future cause it ain't happened yet)
An Example... there's literally 1000s to choose from.
In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time.
A person in the Present / Future can go to the Past cause its already happened... As long as s/he doesn't interfere with Past events everything in the Present / Future will still happen as it rightfully should.
(But somebody in the Past cant go to the Present / Future cause it ain't happened yet)
That's my take on TT LOL
I’m battling a nagging cold, so I’ll admit I’m not 100% here. I’m not catching the reference of the second line: "In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time.” Regardless, the overall answer still doesn’t cut it for me, because these people aren’t going back to their pasts, they’re going back to a time in the past, but they themselves are quite different (much older, for one) as is the location (if you believe the vast majority of them were never on the Island before #815’s crash, or when they arrived at other times- like Ben and Juliet, etc.).
In this episode, Juliet is an adult when she and the others go back in time to 1974/1977. In the “original” 1977, Juliet was about 7. I would have an easier time buying into the TT if when they actually traveled back to a time in which they already existed, they were that same age- so for this example, Juliet would be 4 and then 7 “again” when they all travel back in time to 1974/1977. This would at least be consistent with the child Daniel believes to be Charlotte in this episode being around 3 or 5 in 1974 (even though a number of people have pointed out that early last season, Ben stated she was born in 1979- not sure if this was a mistake on the writer’s part or if they are factoring in TT again somehow). For arguments sake, let’s say Ben’s info was off and this indeed is young Charlotte, so now Daniel has the opportunity to tell her “again” to not come back to the Island or she will die. But, in order for this to work, for me, Daniel would have to be the same age as well- as what dying Charlotte remembered (i.e. they would both be the same age they were “originally” in 1977). Since we already saw Daniel when the “microwave time vault machine” was being built earlier this season, maybe this works- for Daniel and Charlotte. But, what about Juliet, Sawyer, Miles, etc.? Sawyer is supposed to be around the same age as Juliet- 35ish. If he went back to this time, wouldn’t this be around the time Sawyer’s father killed his mother and then himself? How do they resolve James as a kid and the Sawyer in this episode existing in two different places (Jasper, AL and the Island) at the same time?
The way the TT was portrayed in this episode (and all along for that matter) is as if you could just bounce around in time and whatever happened before, in say, 1977, never existed because now Juliet delivers Amy’s baby in 1977. So, according to the tortured logic of the writers, Juliet’s delivering Amy’s baby has now happened, so now the “whatever happened, happened” rule is still intact? Give me a break. This entire series of events was, in fact, changed (big time) just by them being there: killing the two Others, saving Amy, Horace and Amy hook up and make a baby and then Juliet delivers the baby. If they didn’t end up in 1974, Amy never would have had this baby.
Also, if Charlotte did, in fact, die before the trip back to 1974 (as opposed to being almost dead when they moved in time), is this why she is her original age from 1974? If you’re dead on the Island and the Island moves to another time, you are the age you "were" at that new / different time? If that’s the case, shouldn’t everyone else who died on the Island go back to the age they "were" in 1974: Libby, Ana Lucia, Mr. Eko, etc.? Or does this apparent rule only apply if you were on the Island in the “original” time (for this episode, 1974)?
Again, I think they really boxed themselves into a corner on the whole TT when they made up the silly rule that you couldn’t change the past and couldn’t “create a different street,” etc. I’m sure the obvious reason for this is most people would ask, “If you could go back in time, who wouldn’t try to change things- especially major historical events like saving the lives of millions by killing Hitler or preventing the assassination of JFK?” So, in an attempt to keep the show focused on the Ben vs. Widmore for control of the Island, they created the rule of not being able to change things in the past, but we see again and again they aren’t following this rule at all. No matter how many TT stories I see, they all end up in a big, fat mess and this episode was just the latest example of this.
so until someone can explain to me how a person can be in two different places at any specific moment in time, this logic just collapses on itself like a house of cards.
I was using TSCC (a TV show like Lost) as an example saying that you can, maybe I should have written it abit better.
BUT I have to be honest Marc I couldn't even begin to try and answer you previous post cause I generally don't pay that much attention to the details regarding Lost (and 99% of the general audience probably don't either.)
(I don't even think TPTB pay as much attention to detail as u do LOL)
Wow, I just wrote a four or five paragraph post that just timed out. Dang. I'll try to express the same ideas more concisely.
I see where you are coming from now Marc. But this isn't a problem for time travel. Again, the issue is simply one of perspective.
The notion that our bodies are a single entity that moves along through time and undergoes changes in itself is not an entirely accurate one. This is simply the perception that we are left with because of our limited capacities for understanding--we naturally see things in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. But the real story is a little more complex. Our bodies to not move objectively through time and pass by certain landmarks. Instead, every person is really comprised of every version of themselves--older and younger--all existent "at once" (in an atemporal sense). Were we able to perceive an extra dimension, we would be able to see the older and younger versions of ourselves. As it is though, we can't, and when we look at a body and see it age, what we are really seeing is the cross-section of an extra-dimensional object that really contains all versions of us--but we, in our limitations, can only make out one age at a single time.
In the case of Juliet, imagine that her life is mapped out on a track, beginning with her birth and ending in her death, with each year labeled. The track is the timeline of her life. And say we have a marble that we are going to set moving along the track, beginning at her birth. What you seem to be asking is how the marble can be in two places on the track at once. But when we set it moving, and it passes chronologically through the years of her life, what we are seeing is not really "Juliet" in the marble. The marble is just an observer. We conventionally talk about time as if a person can be contained in a single time, but they really can't. "Juliet" is the track, containing every age, every "version" of herself. Without time travel we could imagine the track as linear, but time travel is the confirmation that the track was really bent the entire time. So when Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet both exist in 1977, what we are really seeing is this: the track, instead of forming a straight line, has looped and come all the way back around to form an intersection. The pre-bend section of the track, in this converging moment, has reached "Age 7," and following it around, post-bend, the spot on the track is now labeled "Age 35"--and they intersect at the very same moment. So when the marble rolls over that exact spot, the observer would be able to see both Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet present at the same "spatial" location in time.
Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the "Didn't Like It' thread. I am admittedly a layman, but the subject does interest me. Though all the knowledge I have on it comes from things like this: Imagining the Tenth Dimension
-----
Also, just quickly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcB
The way the TT was portrayed in this episode (and all along for that matter) is as if you could just bounce around in time and whatever happened before, in say, 1977, never existed because now Juliet delivers Amy’s baby in 1977. So, according to the tortured logic of the writers, Juliet’s delivering Amy’s baby has now happened, so now the “whatever happened, happened” rule is still intact? Give me a break. This entire series of events was, in fact, changed (big time) just by them being there: killing the two Others, saving Amy, Horace and Amy hook up and make a baby and then Juliet delivers the baby. If they didn’t end up in 1974, Amy never would have had this baby.
I still think you are missing the point of "whatever happened, happened."
It is not the case that "whatever happened never existed" because Juliet "now" delievers Amy's baby. Juliet delivering the baby didn't "now" happen...it has always happened in 1977. Nothing was changed by Juliet being there "now" (in the episode "LaFleur"). There was no other past. When Juliet comes to the island in 2001, her 35-year-old self had already delivered Amy's baby in 1977. When Dan says that it doesn't matter WHAT they do, because "whatever happened happened," he is saying that no matter what choices the characters make in the past, every single thing they do is what, if they were in 2004 looking back to the past, had made everything the way it was. Everything they do is event fulfillment. You can't go back and kill Hitler because you know that Hitler survived until 1945. If you go back and try to kill Hitler, you know that you will fail simply by virtue of the fact that he didn't die. Any assassination attempt that you try will have been an essential component of the Hitler story before you ever decided to go back in time.
So really, everything the Losties try to change in the past to affect the future will actually be responsible for bringing about what they already KNOW to happen in the future. Hypothetical Example: If one of the Losties tries to kill Ben as a child to make it so that he never grows up to be a villain, something will go wrong and they will fail, and may in fact be that suffering this trauma is what hardens him to become that villain in the firstplace. Any future events the Losties try to prevent will actually and ironically be fulfilled.
Last edited by Wayne Jarvis; 03-09-2009 at 05:38 PM.
Wow, I just wrote a four or five paragraph post that just timed out. Dang. I'll try to express the same ideas more concisely.
I see where you are coming from now Marc. But this isn't a problem for time travel. Again, the issue is simply one of perspective.
The notion that our bodies are a single entity that moves along through time and undergoes changes in itself is not an entirely accurate one. This is simply the perception that we are left with because of our limited capacities for understanding--we naturally see things in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. But the real story is a little more complex. Our bodies to not move objectively through time and pass by certain landmarks. Instead, every person is really comprised of every version of themselves--older and younger--all existent "at once" (in an atemporal sense). Were we able to perceive an extra dimension, we would be able to see the older and younger versions of ourselves. As it is though, we can't, and when we look at a body and see it age, what we are really seeing is the cross-section of an extra-dimensional object that really contains all versions of us--but we, in our limitations, can only make out one age at a single time.
In the case of Juliet, imagine that her life is mapped out on a track, beginning with her birth and ending in her death, with each year labeled. The track is the timeline of her life. And say we have a marble that we are going to set moving along the track, beginning at her birth. What you seem to be asking is how the marble can be in two places on the track at once. But when we set it moving, and it passes chronologically through the years of her life, what we are seeing is not really "Juliet" in the marble. The marble is just an observer. We conventionally talk about time as if a person can be contained in a single time, but they really can't. "Juliet" is the track, containing every age, every "version" of herself. Without time travel we could imagine the track as linear, but time travel is the confirmation that the track was really bent the entire time. So when Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet both exist in 1977, what we are really seeing is this: the track, instead of forming a straight line, has looped and come all the way back around to form an intersection. The pre-bend section of the track, in this converging moment, has reached "Age 7," and following it around, post-bend, the spot on the track is now labeled "Age 35"--and they intersect at the very same moment. So when the marble rolls over that exact spot, the observer would be able to see both Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet present at the same "spatial" location in time.
Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the "Didn't Like It' thread. I am admittedly a layman, but the subject does interest me. Though all the knowledge I have on it comes from things like this: Imagining the Tenth Dimension
-----
Also, just quickly:
I still think you are missing the point of "whatever happened, happened."
It is not the case that "whatever happened never existed" because Juliet "now" delievers Amy's baby. Juliet delivering the baby didn't "now" happen...it has always happened in 1977. Nothing was changed by Juliet being there "now" (in the episode "LaFleur"). There was no other past. When Juliet comes to the island in 2001, her 35-year-old self had already delivered Amy's baby in 1977. When Dan says that it doesn't matter WHAT they do, because "whatever happened happened," he is saying that no matter what choices the characters make in the past, every single thing they do is what, if they were in 2004 looking back to the past, had made everything the way it was. Everything they do is event fulfillment. You can't go back and kill Hitler because you know that Hitler survived until 1945. If you go back and try to kill Hitler, you know that you will fail simply by virtue of the fact that he didn't die. Any assassination attempt that you try will have been an essential component of the Hitler story before you ever decided to go back in time.
So really, everything the Losties try to change in the past to affect the future will actually be responsible for bringing about what they already KNOW to happen in the future. Hypothetical Example: If one of the Losties tries to kill Ben as a child to make it so that he never grows up to be a villain, something will go wrong and they will fail, and may in fact be that suffering this trauma is what hardens him to become that villain in the firstplace. Any future events the Losties try to prevent will actually and ironically be fulfilled.
I’m quite certain we will have to agree to disagree on this, WJ. I’m going to do my best to tie in this episode further below, but first I must address the logic component.
If we were really comprised of “every version of ourselves, all at once,” how does that not suggest our entire existence is already mapped out- and not just the existence of our brief lives on Earth but the entire existence of the universe, by extension? To be comprised of every version of ourselves, we would need to know what all of those versions are: the beginning, the middle and the end (our birth, our life and our death). So if we know what all of our versions are, then our entire existence has to be mapped out so an observer could see it. This would suggest, at the very least, that our entire life is like a script from which we can’t deviate (i.e. nothing is random). All evidence is to the contrary: just think of how randomness affects our own individual lives and the world at large.
In this episode, we are to believe that everything happened the way it did because “what happened, happened.” Based on the “WHH” logic, you could explain anything that has ever happened or will ever happen in the entire existence of the world with that logic. That’s pretty convenient. It’s also utter nonsense, IMO.
Also, if the “marble” is just an “observer” who is that observer? This suggests that Juliet’s life is like the one we are seeing on the show (i.e. we are the observers). This is all fine and dandy in theory, but in reality how does this kind of theory account for things like randomness, ripple effects of our lives and how our lives intersect with everyone else that we have ever interacted with (not just family, friends and co-workers, etc. but everyone)? Just think of all the people we have encountered throughout our lives and think of all the “tracks” and therefore “marbles” that would entail. And people can’t be “contained in a single time?” How, then, can we measure time? Why is that we know people are born at a certain time and die at a certain time?
Now, back to this episode. So, Juliet’s life is comprised of every version of herself, all at once, and she is a track that is in a loop (i.e. a circle). How exactly does a circle intersect with itself? There is a beginning and an end (like Juliet’s birth, life and eventual death) to a circle, but in order to intersect at a different point than where / when the beginning and end meet in that circle, there would have to be an entire new track. So in order for Juliet to always have delivered Amy’s baby in 1977 (“WHH”), there would have to be another path / track to get the 35-year-old Juliet to 1977 to do this, right? How can there be an entire new track if Juliet is the “original” track? This is why I refer to this kind of logic as being “tortured” logic. Just look at all of the assumptions, theories and imagination you have to swallow in order for it to work.
Lastly, if this is the path they go down for LOST, good luck getting an average viewer to understand any of it- even with the little pop-up boxes, flowcharts and countless diagrams.
Aside from the fact that I'm just really tired of all the time hopping, the much-anticipated reunion at the end was a letdown and the episode as a whole was magnificently dull.
Loved the episode as a repeat with subtitle commentary. BUT I HATED SCRUBS!!!! wtf abc? where was LoST at 8PM????????? the only redeeming scene in scrubs was Courtney Cox in silk lingerie. yum...........now where's KATE???????????????
I think you have it right in your last post MarkB. “what happened, happened.” basically means that, at least in the lost universe, their entire existence has been mapped out and can't be changed.
I am willing go more in depth if you want.
~~ Jater # 277 
~~ Fox # 239 
~~ The shirt: 
Re: Didn't Love it.
I'll try to express the same ideas more concisely.
and
and 