Thursday, May 7, 2009
Bye For Now
I think I'm giving up on the blog. I just am not getting enough readership to continue during the hiatus. I'll be back for the final season though.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What Happened, Happened
Although it was funny, I thought the scene with Miles and Hurley talked down to the audience. I'm still on the fence about changes to the island due to influences of the war to come (if it takes place pre-2007), but not about the actual time-line from the POV of the characters. If there are no stakes (Whatever Happened, Happened), why would Eloise Hawking say 'God help us all?' Speaking of this, we know that not everyone came back so... what's going to happen?
The island is obviously special in some way (it is a world created by writers who can decide what properties it has and what it can do). Perhaps this places us in a position where our knowledge of theoretical physics isn't completely on target in this one fictional place in space-time. After all, there is exotic matter there (which I'm sure points to a wormhole) and other properties that can take us into new realms of speculation.
Further, we have to understand that characters have their own motivations, pasts and flaws. Miles probably has his knowledge from his father (who I'm positive is Pierre) and Faraday, Faraday's theories are influenced by his mother (Eloise), Eloise certainly has her own motivations (if she really believed what she said to Desmond then why would she have to try so hard to convince him), Pierre Chang is severely limited by theoretical physics of 1977. Personally, I know exactly what I believe if this were taking place in the non-fictional world. However, I would like to facilitate more amicable discourse on the matter.
Most people I've talked to seem fairly adamant about their side in this matter; wouldn't it be great if this war in the forums is a antecedent to the war to come? Maybe, we are all taking sides in the war and don't realize it; it would be brilliant if the writers planned it that way.
The island is obviously special in some way (it is a world created by writers who can decide what properties it has and what it can do). Perhaps this places us in a position where our knowledge of theoretical physics isn't completely on target in this one fictional place in space-time. After all, there is exotic matter there (which I'm sure points to a wormhole) and other properties that can take us into new realms of speculation.
Further, we have to understand that characters have their own motivations, pasts and flaws. Miles probably has his knowledge from his father (who I'm positive is Pierre) and Faraday, Faraday's theories are influenced by his mother (Eloise), Eloise certainly has her own motivations (if she really believed what she said to Desmond then why would she have to try so hard to convince him), Pierre Chang is severely limited by theoretical physics of 1977. Personally, I know exactly what I believe if this were taking place in the non-fictional world. However, I would like to facilitate more amicable discourse on the matter.
Most people I've talked to seem fairly adamant about their side in this matter; wouldn't it be great if this war in the forums is a antecedent to the war to come? Maybe, we are all taking sides in the war and don't realize it; it would be brilliant if the writers planned it that way.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Time Travel and Lost
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).
"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).
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
