The Official LOST Season Five *No Spoilers* Thread

[Kycha]

Congrats on getting that one right. I was convinced it was NOT Ethan. I was hoping Keamy or Karl.

The age still doesn't add up though. He was born in 1977.
He was 15 during the purge which he survived and became an "other"
He was 27 when 815 crashed and was already a skilled surgeon?

Doesn't add up. Also, how did he become a surgeon? Did he take online classes? Or did he travel to the mainland to attend college?

Not to mention that Ben is roughly 12 years older than Ethan. Yet Ethan looks roughly the same(or older) age as Ben in 2004.

There are a lot of age things that don't add up, like Charlotte. I think we're just going to have to go with it.

I guess you are right. I'll have to listen to the podcast this week to see if they can clear this up.

 

[TheZue]

Ok, so Sawyer will never grow old and gray....whichever Sawyer we're talking about only makes it to age 35 and crashes on the island and goes back in time. Is that right?

Now all this "what happened, happened" stuff....wasn't there a FIRST time for 1977? I mean, at one point there had to be just ONE Sawyer in existence, the young Sawyer who was just growing up for the very first time. He had to go from birth to age 35 so he could crash and go back to 1977 and start the whole never-ending circle, right? So during that initial period there was only one Sawyer?

I'm sorry to be so dense, but I'm just trying to understand this whole thing.

You can't look at time as something that has a beginning and an end with a moving point. It's a complete entity already. What is going to happen today will and where we are is the past to somebody else, to another it might be the future. So when you look at it as a complete entity in 1977 there are two sawyers, and at some point Sawyer probably will get old, but it won't be as late a year as one would expect looking at his birth year. It's not a loop but a complete and finished thing that the losties just happen to be bouncing around on; but that is how it has always been.

If anyone wants a crazy time travel book that looks at it as a completed picture I strongly suggest buy Kurt Vonnegut. I think this is the sort of Time Travel that Lost is working with.

 

[Amy]

I hope you are not revealing a spoiler in the non spoiler thread.

Oops....sorry! I went back and removed that from my post. Someone had posted that back on page 59 or 60, but they put it in white, which I should have done. My bad.

 

[GoodFairies]

You can't look at time as something that has a beginning and an end with a moving point. It's a complete entity already. What is going to happen today will and where we are is the past to somebody else, to another it might be the future.

I can grasp that. But why or how can there be 2 of the same person on one linear timeline that isn't a loop?

 

[TheZue]

I can grasp that. But why or how can there be 2 of the same person on one linear timeline that isn't a loop?

Because for most people they live the completed entity in order, but these people have moved from one area to another. It may seem to us like they are going and doing this over and over again, but it's really only once. They didn't move to a different 1977, it's the same one that already happened, they just didn't know their older self was a part of it.

 

[brerrabbit]

Okay reading your posts has starting clearing a few things up, I think.

You can exsist in two times at once because if you did not exsist in the future when you got into the time machine then you could not have gone back in time. The exception to this rule is what the Losties were experiencing before they landed in 1974 for good. The reason for the anurisms, nosebleeds, and headaches were because in that time skipping scenario you only exsisted in one place and in one time. Remember they just vanished from in front of Richard and his others camp in 1954? They were not lined up with time so they got sick. So to avoid the sickness you either need a constant or you need to stop in one time period. In fact the fact that you exsist as a time traveler and as your normal self, say in 1977 might mean that you younger self is in fact your constant that saves you.

As far as the unable to change history idea I gave my take on this a while back and I still think its true. You can't change the outcome between point a and point b but you can alter the path that takes you there. In otherwords if people die, get killed, or are born in 1970 and are still alive in 2005 then in one series of events they will still be born in 1970 and alive in 2005. But time travelers could change things to the extent that on one path Dharma people happen upon Amy and Paul and save Amy but on another path from A to B Sawyer and Julliette save Amy. The outcome is that Amy still gets saved and has a baby with Horace.

That follows Faradays comment that whatever happens, happened.

 

[GoodFairies]

Okay reading your posts has starting clearing a few things up, I think.

You can exsist in two times at once because if you did not exsist in the future when you got into the time machine then you could not have gone back in time. The exception to this rule is what the Losties were experiencing before they landed in 1974 for good. The reason for the anurisms, nosebleeds, and headaches were because in that time skipping scenario you only exsisted in one place and in one time. Remember they just vanished from in front of Richard and his others camp in 1954? They were not lined up with time so they got sick. So to avoid the sickness you either need a constant or you need to stop in one time period. In fact the fact that you exsist as a time traveler and as your normal self, say in 1977 might mean that you younger self is in fact your constant that saves you.

I had assumed they landed in 1974 because that just happened to be the flash that occurred when Locke righted the wheel. But I guess they were put there on purpose?

As far as the unable to change history idea I gave my take on this a while back and I still think its true. You can't change the outcome between point a and point b but you can alter the path that takes you there. In otherwords if people die, get killed, or are born in 1970 and are still alive in 2005 then in one series of events they will still be born in 1970 and alive in 2005. But time travelers could change things to the extent that on one path Dharma people happen upon Amy and Paul and save Amy but on another path from A to B Sawyer and Julliette save Amy. The outcome is that Amy still gets saved and has a baby with Horace.

See this is what I was originally thinking, that the outcome is that Amy is always saved. But people are saying Sawyer always saved Amy - which only makes sense if that 1974 that we were shown was the only 1974, which we know is not.

 

[Kycha]

Oops....sorry! I went back and removed that from my post.

Thanks! I have edited my post as well.

 

[elizke]

You've all got my head spinning. My understanding of time travel always deepens and grows until finally my thoughts blow up into nothingness.

But it did lead me to a thought. First I was thinking that Sun didn't go to the main island so they could make us wait longer for the reunion with her husband.

But now I'm thinking maybe Ben didn't go becasue he is already on the island as a kid, and how about Sun being instructional video guy's daughter? So she is already there too as a child, and that's why she could not appear there.

 

[harleyquinn]

As far as the unable to change history idea I gave my take on this a while back and I still think its true. You can't change the outcome between point a and point b but you can alter the path that takes you there. In otherwords if people die, get killed, or are born in 1970 and are still alive in 2005 then in one series of events they will still be born in 1970 and alive in 2005. But time travelers could change things to the extent that on one path Dharma people happen upon Amy and Paul and save Amy but on another path from A to B Sawyer and Julliette save Amy. The outcome is that Amy still gets saved and has a baby with Horace.

That follows Faradays comment that whatever happens, happened.

You can't change history because it already happened. There are no different paths. Whatever happens, happens in exactly the same way every single time.

As I've said before, Lost is not about changing the past or destiny or whatever--it's about the journey of these people's lives. It's HOW we get to the Incident and HOW we get to the Purge. The events will have always happened that way--it's just in telling how the Losties get where they're going that is the story.

Time is like a record, you can move between songs back and forth, but you can't change the record.

I cannot believe we are still talking about the rules of time travel. lol I bet you all some cookies that after the finale next year, we'll have people posting, "But why didn't they just let Amy die in the past and change everything?! or something similar.

 

[wdhinn89]

I agree that it would be strange, but lets not forget how upset Dr Marvin Candles got when the two bunnies with the same number showed up in the same room at the same time while he was filming an orientation film for one of the stations. The only theroy of time travel I have ever seen deal with this was from the movie Timecop with Jan Claude Van Damme. The theroy was that the same person time traveling could not occupy the same space at the same time as their current time self. In other words when thinking in the fourth dimension (three dimension space plus time) if the same person or thing interscets then bad things happen. Could this be the origin of the "incident" he alludes to in some of the videos.

In Timecop they pushed the bad guy from the future into his past self and they melted into a puddle of goo.

What confuses me with this statement is Sawyer was on the island when Claire gave birth to Aaron. Later when he was flashing in time and he heard a girl screaming and ran in the woods and came across Kate delivering Aaron, he would have been occupying the same space at the same time as his current self. He very well could have run into himself in the woods.

 

[harleyquinn]

But now I'm thinking maybe Ben didn't go becasue he is already on the island as a kid, and how about Sun being instructional video guy's daughter? So she is already there too as a child, and that's why she could not appear there.

I actually had that thought too. That we know Ben is in 1977 so that's why he didn't go back and maybe, somehow, Sun is actually a baby on the island in 1977 too. But we know that the asian baby we saw is a boy (Miles).

 

[wdhinn89]

You've all got my head spinning. My understanding of time travel always deepens and grows until finally my thoughts blow up into nothingness.

But it did lead me to a thought. First I was thinking that Sun didn't go to the main island so they could make us wait longer for the reunion with her husband.

But now I'm thinking maybe Ben didn't go becasue he is already on the island as a kid, and how about Sun being instructional video guy's daughter? So she is already there too as a child, and that's why she could not appear there.

Interesting. Are they the same Asian nationality?

 

[harleyquinn]

What confuses me with this statement is Sawyer was on the island when Claire gave birth to Aaron. Later when he was flashing in time and he heard a girl screaming and ran in the woods and came across Kate delivering Aaron, he would have been occupying the same space at the same time as his current self. He very well could have run into himself in the woods.

I think either it was because the group was jumping that they could exist in the same time or that the Lost writers don't actually care if they do. I wouldn't be surprised at all if young Ben meets up with old Ben, which helps make him so evil/crazy.

Daniel (voice of the writers) has never said that someone can't exist in time stream as two different ages. (at least that I remember)

 

[wdhinn89]

But we know that the asian baby we saw is a boy (Miles).

I forgot, how did we know the baby was a boy?

So many things to keep track of

 

[wdhinn89]

I think either it was because the group was jumping that they could exist in the same time or that the Lost writers don't actually care if they do. I wouldn't be surprised at all if young Ben meets up with old Ben, which helps make him so evil/crazy.

Daniel (voice of the writers) has never said that someone can't exist in time stream as two different ages. (at least that I remember)

You could be right about Ben meeting himself and going evil/crazy. Anything is possible.

I can't remember the specifics of when Aaron was born but it could be something as simple as Sawyer fishing in a canoe off the island or maybe it was when he was on the raft with Michael, Jin and Walt. I can't remember the time line of anything anymore. My brain hurts

 

[GoodFairies]

But we know that the asian baby we saw is a boy (Miles).

That sounds like a spoiler. As far as this thread goes, it's only a theory.

 

[Kycha]

I forgot, how did we know the baby was a boy?

I don't think we do. I don't recall any reference to the baby's gender in that episode.

 

[debraW76]

I don't think we do. I don't recall any reference to the baby's gender in that episode.

I do NOT read spoilers and I thought that the baby was a boy. So I was thinking it was something on the show itself.

Maybe not, maybe I time travelled from the future and told myself it was a boy.

 

[brerrabbit]

You can't change history because it already happened. There are no different paths. Whatever happens, happens in exactly the same way every single time.

As I've said before, Lost is not about changing the past or destiny or whatever--it's about the journey of these people's lives. It's HOW we get to the Incident and HOW we get to the Purge. The events will have always happened that way--it's just in telling how the Losties get where they're going that is the story.

Time is like a record, you can move between songs back and forth, but you can't change the record.

I cannot believe we are still talking about the rules of time travel. lol I bet you all some cookies that after the finale next year, we'll have people posting, "But why didn't they just let Amy die in the past and change everything?! or something similar.

See I can't buy this because Desmond could not change the fact that Charlie had to die, but he prevented his death from lightning, drowning, and the arrow ****y trap. So while the fact that he died did not change, the way he died did in fact change. It relates to Daniels comment on time travel about being on a street, you can go back and forth on the street but you can't get on another street. Therefore the views could change and the peoples interaction could change but in the end the same things would happen. It's the end that remains, but the means can change. I know that people have said Desmond is special but, how special?

After John visited Richard in 1954 and said he was their leader Richard visits John in the hospital and later as a young boy. Would he have visited John if John had not flashed to 1954?

The other confusing issue is when Michael tried to commit suicide in the alley. The gun wouldn't work for him when he tried to shoot himself in the head. Had he really wanted to die he might have tried other ways and still not been successful because it was not his time.