Going back in time produces paradoxes if something happens to prevent the time-traveler from going back in time in the first place. If a time traveler goes back in time to prevent a disaster, stops the disaster, then the disaster will no longer exist and the time traveler would have no reason to stop it. The other one is the grandfather paradox which states that you can't go back in time and kill your own grandfather (before he impregnates grandma with your mother/father -after that have at the old coot). This one is closely linked to auto-infacticide - you can't kill baby you because big you wouldn't exist to kill baby you.
"But the producers said we won't have paradoxes!" I can hear you yelling at me.
Note that they said we wouldn't have time travel either. However, I believe we've already seen what I believe to be examples of the ontological paradox: Daniel's machine settings and the compass. For example, Daniel looks in his notebook and gives Desmond the settings for his machine. Desmond travels back and gives those settings to younger Daniel and they work! Then younger Daniel writes them in his notebook where they stay so he can give them to Desmond... who then goes back in time... There is no origin for the settings, they just ARE. By the way, if Daniel didn't actually teach Eloise the maze while Desmond was out of it then things are really wonky - or he has a teeny tiny defibrillator.
I would be careful about taking everything that Daniel or Pierre say as fact. First, Daniel could be influenced by his mother, who I believe has a definite agenda (the longest con on the show: 'course correction'); we haven't definitively seen any course correction first hand, so we are taking Eloise's word for it. I don't believe Charlie is a case of course correction, but rather a sacrifice made by Desmond to find Penny; Charlie and Desmond could easily have gotten out of the station before it was flooded. As for Pierre, he is limited by the science of 1977 and probably even less credible; there is a huge knowledge gap between 1977 and 2007 (in which lies the Novikov self-consistency principle, for one).
I can't shake the feeling that what we are seeing on Lost is a time-loop. If this is the case, something has to give (or already has) or we'll just see the loop begin to repeat as the final *boom* "LOST" hits our screens. In the end it doesn't really matter. The producers have created their own failsafe in Desmond and can turn the key if the storyline starts to blow (figuratively or literally take your pick).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
This week on Lost: Sayid Chokes the Chicken... Oh, and Tries to Kill a Little Kid Too!
First, my son came into the room when I was watching Lost and asked why Benjamin Franklin was stuck on Lost island; when I realized he was talking about Horace, I laughed myself silly. Just imagine Horace flying a kite in a tri-corn hat .... now on to the meat of the blog:
If you could kill Hitler as a baby, would you?
I'm not going into this too much because I know we've been making our own decisions all week and who am I to challenge your moral compass on a blog. But remember this, killing baby Hitler has it’s risks. Maybe, it will set worse things into motion. Say, for example, that someone Hitler murdered would have been the ancestor of a person who starts a global nuclear war that kills far more people than Hitler ever did. Time travel is a sticky subject; there is no definitive answer. Is one life worth less than the lives of many?
Anyway, what I'd rather talk about is "What Happened, Happened." Now, this line has been all over the comments on sites I go to all week and I'm starting to get sick of it. Let me just make an example of how this line means nothing to our theorizing one way or the other:
1. What happened, happened; therefore, what you did when you went back to 1977 happened and the future is changed now.
2. What happened, happened; therefore nothing you can do in 1977 will change anything in the future because it always happened that way.
If Ben, in fact, already knows that Sayid will shoot him, then he must want to be shot as a child. It must have some importance to him (maybe it facilitates his entry into the Others/ Hostiles). Obviously, Ben is priming Sayid for three years to be a killer. Unless, of course, Ben purposely was trying to keep Sayid Hostile to Ben enough to keep him off the plane. In which case, we could ask ourselves if Ilana was put into play by someone else to make sure young Ben was shot.
My Thought of the Day: Could the real "long con" on Lost be perpetuated by Eloise Hawking: That is, course correction could be complete bunk. Discuss...
By the way, re-check what I said last week about Juliet and who Ben thinks/ knows she is his in the future. I think we will see if I'm right this week.
Namaste!
If you could kill Hitler as a baby, would you?
I'm not going into this too much because I know we've been making our own decisions all week and who am I to challenge your moral compass on a blog. But remember this, killing baby Hitler has it’s risks. Maybe, it will set worse things into motion. Say, for example, that someone Hitler murdered would have been the ancestor of a person who starts a global nuclear war that kills far more people than Hitler ever did. Time travel is a sticky subject; there is no definitive answer. Is one life worth less than the lives of many?
Anyway, what I'd rather talk about is "What Happened, Happened." Now, this line has been all over the comments on sites I go to all week and I'm starting to get sick of it. Let me just make an example of how this line means nothing to our theorizing one way or the other:
1. What happened, happened; therefore, what you did when you went back to 1977 happened and the future is changed now.
2. What happened, happened; therefore nothing you can do in 1977 will change anything in the future because it always happened that way.
If Ben, in fact, already knows that Sayid will shoot him, then he must want to be shot as a child. It must have some importance to him (maybe it facilitates his entry into the Others/ Hostiles). Obviously, Ben is priming Sayid for three years to be a killer. Unless, of course, Ben purposely was trying to keep Sayid Hostile to Ben enough to keep him off the plane. In which case, we could ask ourselves if Ilana was put into play by someone else to make sure young Ben was shot.
My Thought of the Day: Could the real "long con" on Lost be perpetuated by Eloise Hawking: That is, course correction could be complete bunk. Discuss...
By the way, re-check what I said last week about Juliet and who Ben thinks/ knows she is his in the future. I think we will see if I'm right this week.
Namaste!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Namaste: Subtle Clues to Ponder
Well, at first glance this episode seems fairly standard and character driven. But is it?
1. The numbers were playing on the plane. In the 2007 that we knew, that wouldn't be happening.
2. How did Ben and the Others know to build a runway in that location without knowing future events. On a side note, I'm glad that I finally understand why they had Sawyer and Kate building a runway.
3. Why haven't we seen the buildings surrounding the dock before? Were they even still there in our first time-line?
4. Does Sawyer's remark about Faraday mean that he's dead, lost in time, or just crazy? Since Pierre Chang is still around in 1977, I suspect that Faraday is also. After all, Chang still needs to lose his arm and I believe the two men still have to make the video from Comic-Con.
5. The island may not hate Ben anymore since it seems that his arm was healed after the plane landed. Maybe the island doesn't hate him in this version of time. Could this future be what he was trying to produce the whole time?
6. If 5 is true, is Sun correct in her assessment that she can't trust Ben? She may be the only hope to put things back to the way they were before.
7. Since Christian is helping Sun is he working with or against Jacob? By the way, what or who do you think the heavy breeze was that blew the door open when they were talking? Ask yourself this, if Christian is linked with technology hating Jacob then why turn on the lights in the bungalow and not have a Jacob-approved lantern instead?
8. The tree being moved ('probably just an animal,' my arse!) could give creedence to the theory that Christian is Smokey.
It's starting to look like our time-line has been seriously changed. But, we have yet to see what happens with Sun (and possibly Lapidus) that could have the effect of making everything go back to the way it was. I am thinking that this episode, which admittedly seems ordinary at first watch, is showing us something huge; could the future, in fact, be altered through time-travel?
We've had it drilled into our heads while watching Lost that the Universe course corrects. However, maybe this is just propaganda spread by one of the sides in the war to come.
1. The numbers were playing on the plane. In the 2007 that we knew, that wouldn't be happening.
2. How did Ben and the Others know to build a runway in that location without knowing future events. On a side note, I'm glad that I finally understand why they had Sawyer and Kate building a runway.
3. Why haven't we seen the buildings surrounding the dock before? Were they even still there in our first time-line?
4. Does Sawyer's remark about Faraday mean that he's dead, lost in time, or just crazy? Since Pierre Chang is still around in 1977, I suspect that Faraday is also. After all, Chang still needs to lose his arm and I believe the two men still have to make the video from Comic-Con.
5. The island may not hate Ben anymore since it seems that his arm was healed after the plane landed. Maybe the island doesn't hate him in this version of time. Could this future be what he was trying to produce the whole time?
6. If 5 is true, is Sun correct in her assessment that she can't trust Ben? She may be the only hope to put things back to the way they were before.
7. Since Christian is helping Sun is he working with or against Jacob? By the way, what or who do you think the heavy breeze was that blew the door open when they were talking? Ask yourself this, if Christian is linked with technology hating Jacob then why turn on the lights in the bungalow and not have a Jacob-approved lantern instead?
8. The tree being moved ('probably just an animal,' my arse!) could give creedence to the theory that Christian is Smokey.
It's starting to look like our time-line has been seriously changed. But, we have yet to see what happens with Sun (and possibly Lapidus) that could have the effect of making everything go back to the way it was. I am thinking that this episode, which admittedly seems ordinary at first watch, is showing us something huge; could the future, in fact, be altered through time-travel?
We've had it drilled into our heads while watching Lost that the Universe course corrects. However, maybe this is just propaganda spread by one of the sides in the war to come.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Time Travel and Character Motivation
I've been re-watching Season 3 in my spare time. I am especially paying attention to Juliet's back-story and her time on the island.
Now, we all heard the "you look just like her" and other comments that many people took to mean Juliet = Annie replacement. Watching with new eyes, I see that Ben has a pained look when he tells Juliet that she can't leave the island in the episode "One of Us." Could it be that Ben already has memories of Juliet from his time as a child?
When Desmond woke and suddenly remembered that Daniel talked to him at the hatch 'front door,' I assumed that the time travel memories only kick in after we see it happen in real time. However, this assumption may be very wrong. Desmond, as we have heard, is special. Perhaps, the meeting is suddenly in his memory because it was not really supposed to happen at all and did not happen in the original time line.
Our heroes going into the past, however, always happened. Therefore, Ben has always known what is going to happen. He is in an almost (I kind of remember a line that a few Dharma people changed sides) unique position to be alive and still remember DI Juliet.
I don't think Ben remembers Jin though; perhaps the message to Desmond resonated through time to save Jin, which made the French chick's crew go to the Temple instead of the Black Rock (remember the epi when Doc Arzt blew up? She mentioned that her crew got "sick" at the Black Rock), and maybe also changed some other details we've yet to see or realize.
Now, what if Ben is trying to re-create all of this because he believes that things have to happen in just the way they did originally? What is the point of letting Juliet go if she still has to become part of the crash survivors and go back in time to Ben's childhood (and maybe do something important to save his life?). Ohhh, that little tizzy fit when he says "you're mine" sounds like a childhood crush to me.
In fact, could the island mother deaths be something hatched by Ben just to intrigue Juliet enough to take the red pill (erm, drink the drugged juice)? The whole 'mothers who get pregnant off-island are safe' could be a Ben-ism to cover for Claire or other successful island births. Perhaps, had Claire not gotten away, Ben would have done something to harm her after all. I've never been fond of the purge gas being used as a reason for mothers and babies dying for a number of reasons. First, because there are other mammals on island who seem completely unaffected. Second, because gas used for such a purpose should have dissipated and should either affect or not affect new women (post purge) on the island no matter where they became pregnant.
In short, if we take what we know now and look to the past of the show, the possible motivations of all of our characters change. I think we may be on the brink of discovering something key to Ben's personality and motivations. Perhaps, he's not a bad guy after all - but don't tell him you heard it from me!
Now, we all heard the "you look just like her" and other comments that many people took to mean Juliet = Annie replacement. Watching with new eyes, I see that Ben has a pained look when he tells Juliet that she can't leave the island in the episode "One of Us." Could it be that Ben already has memories of Juliet from his time as a child?
When Desmond woke and suddenly remembered that Daniel talked to him at the hatch 'front door,' I assumed that the time travel memories only kick in after we see it happen in real time. However, this assumption may be very wrong. Desmond, as we have heard, is special. Perhaps, the meeting is suddenly in his memory because it was not really supposed to happen at all and did not happen in the original time line.
Our heroes going into the past, however, always happened. Therefore, Ben has always known what is going to happen. He is in an almost (I kind of remember a line that a few Dharma people changed sides) unique position to be alive and still remember DI Juliet.
I don't think Ben remembers Jin though; perhaps the message to Desmond resonated through time to save Jin, which made the French chick's crew go to the Temple instead of the Black Rock (remember the epi when Doc Arzt blew up? She mentioned that her crew got "sick" at the Black Rock), and maybe also changed some other details we've yet to see or realize.
Now, what if Ben is trying to re-create all of this because he believes that things have to happen in just the way they did originally? What is the point of letting Juliet go if she still has to become part of the crash survivors and go back in time to Ben's childhood (and maybe do something important to save his life?). Ohhh, that little tizzy fit when he says "you're mine" sounds like a childhood crush to me.
In fact, could the island mother deaths be something hatched by Ben just to intrigue Juliet enough to take the red pill (erm, drink the drugged juice)? The whole 'mothers who get pregnant off-island are safe' could be a Ben-ism to cover for Claire or other successful island births. Perhaps, had Claire not gotten away, Ben would have done something to harm her after all. I've never been fond of the purge gas being used as a reason for mothers and babies dying for a number of reasons. First, because there are other mammals on island who seem completely unaffected. Second, because gas used for such a purpose should have dissipated and should either affect or not affect new women (post purge) on the island no matter where they became pregnant.
In short, if we take what we know now and look to the past of the show, the possible motivations of all of our characters change. I think we may be on the brink of discovering something key to Ben's personality and motivations. Perhaps, he's not a bad guy after all - but don't tell him you heard it from me!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Meet Taweret
Taweret is my guess as to the statue 
on the island. Note the four toes! She is a goddess of maternity and childbirth. Hmmm, pregnant women...need for protection... that sounds oddly familiar... Oh yeah, this is Lost. Opet is the more human looking goddess that replaced Tawaret later on and is another possibility, although the ears and hat make me think differently. I'd also keep a sharp eye out for Sekhmet (the
bringer of disease and curer of ills). I think I'll be disappointed, but not surprised, if this turns out to be a more obvious god. I'm looking at you, Anubis.My only problem with my theory is that Egyptian goddesses are traditionally shown with longer gowns and gods are shown with shorter skirts. We'll see...
On a more practical note, statues of this size were rarely (if ever) made to be freestanding on two legs. I'll have to look it up, but such technology would point to this being built at least during the later quarter of the ancient Egyptian time-line.
I can't stress enough the difficulty of constructing something of this size with separated legs and no drapery, base or throne behind the legs to keep it standing. For example, the 10-story Colossus of Rhodes (280 BC) was made of Bronze, probably used drapery or a cape for stability, surely did not have the legs separated across the harbor entrance (despite popular images), and was still toppled within 80 years. If our Lost island statue existed it would truly be the ultimate wonder of the ancient world.
While researching, I was checking out the dimensions of the Eye of Horus and came across this:
As you can imagine, I was excited to find many of the numbers, but unfortunately not all of them. Check out the article here.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Readers Come Out Of the Closet!
I have a great deal of traffic through this site, but nobody comments! C'mon people, I want some comments! Otherwise I feel as though I'm talking to myself (not that that's a bad thing, I do it all the time!)
For good or bad, leave a mark that you were here. Even if you think I'm full of crap ;)
For good or bad, leave a mark that you were here. Even if you think I'm full of crap ;)
What is Neither Good nor Bad? Read and Find Out...
If you ever play RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons; I would place the island in the true neutral range. For a simple explanation see this page. True neutrality would certainly make a person (or island) seem to have a bit dissociative disorder/ split personality.
Let's say that the stakes are the extinction of the human race; would killing to try to avoid this outcome then be good or bad? A true neutral would say kill the few to save the many. Tough decision when you really think about it.
It's a question that has been pondered by philosophers ad nauseum. However, I think that is exactly where we are being asked to consider on Lost. Therefore, there will always be those who see the actions of different characters as good, and others who see it as evil. I prefer to consider everyone within the spectrum of neutrality (especially Ben/ Widmore/ the island -if it has really has a consciousness and is not just a "machine" that responds to current events/ leaders) until I have all the facts as to what is ultimately at stake.
Let's say that the stakes are the extinction of the human race; would killing to try to avoid this outcome then be good or bad? A true neutral would say kill the few to save the many. Tough decision when you really think about it.
It's a question that has been pondered by philosophers ad nauseum. However, I think that is exactly where we are being asked to consider on Lost. Therefore, there will always be those who see the actions of different characters as good, and others who see it as evil. I prefer to consider everyone within the spectrum of neutrality (especially Ben/ Widmore/ the island -if it has really has a consciousness and is not just a "machine" that responds to current events/ leaders) until I have all the facts as to what is ultimately at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
