Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

5,483 profile views
  1. I'm pretty sure it's not tilt but rotate left and right; if there were no obstacles in front of me I'd gently swipe the remote back and forth constantly and remain upright throughout. Also, you can still hold A when crossing those tightropes. I found a flick of the wrist just as the net reaches the bug improved my chances of catching it dramatically.
  2. Well, well, well.

  3. As Lewis points out, that's not paradoxical: "Strange! But not impossible, and not too different from inexplicabilities we are already inured to. Almosst everyone agrees that God, or the Big Bang, or the entire infinite pastof the universe or the decay of a tritium atom, is uncaused and inexplicable." What would be paradoxical is the bomb going off and everything being changed, flight 815 never crashing etc. (Unless we start talking about different timelines, but I really do not see Lost doing that, not with only one season left.) The best stuff in Lewis's paper is on the grandfather paradox for the last four pages (though the stuff on fatalism is largely irrelevant to Lost, I think). A few read throughs of Lewis will, I think, give you a much better grasp of what's going on in Lost, even if it seems to make things more difficult to begin with. It's a dense paper, but it's an excellent account of the issues of temporal paradox that Lost, largely, aligns itself to.
  4. A perhaps better way to explain things. Jack bites into an apple in 2007. He swallows that apple in 1977. What has happened? The temporal part of Jack that was his biting into the apple is followed by the temporal part of his swallowing the apple, just like normal. What isn't normal is that the first takes place at a later time than the second. Jack has not changed time by travelling back to an earlier period, it's just that he's an object whose story through time is not a single straight line. Time is such that the temporal location of every temporal part of every object is fixed. That is, the temporal part of me that is typing this post is located at 12:50 AM on Thursday, 21 May 2009. The temporal part of me that comes after that one need not be at 12:51 AM on Thursday, 21 May 2009. It could be at any time whatsoever. But it is still the next temporal part of me. My causal history does not follow a continuous chain of contiguous temporal parts; contiguity can come apart from continuity, adjacent temporal parts can be separated by an arbitrary length of time, in either direction of time. Jack always swallowed the apple in 1977. That temporal part of him was fixed at that time. All temporal parts of him are fixed at their respective times. The same is true for every object in the universe (except Desmond, and maybe Jacob or maybe the writers will change their minds...). Let's say we cut Jack out of time and line up each of his temporal parts; for his causal history to make sense they have to lined up in a certain order. Longer hair comes after shorter hair, because his hair grew. Ingested food comes before digested food, because digestion is something that happens to ingested food, not the other way round. The watch on his wrist shows 1AM first, then 2AM, so the temporal part with the former comes before the latter. And so on. We place each of the temporal parts side by side and we get the complete causal history of Jack, from birth to death, in order. Now we can place any one of those temporal parts anywhere in time, and they will still be in order, it's just they won't be in chronological order. That's weird, but not inconsistent. Time flows forwards like normal, but objects can have chronologically disordered temporal parts allowing their later stages to appear earlier in time than their earlier stages. But that does not permit them to change anything. Note that I have nowhere used the terms 'future' and 'past', because there's no such thing from this perspective. Or rather, the past is entirely relative to which temporal part of Jack (fixed to some location in time) we are interested in. 1930 is the past of both the temporal part of Jack in 1977 swallowing the apple, and the Jack in 2007 eating the apple, but 1980 is the past of only the latter. We might say, in 2007, 1980 is Jack's past but it will become the future for him. OK, the more I wrote the more convoluted it all seemed to get. For anyone struggling to follow the conception of time travel Lost is using, I recommend reading this http://www.scribd.com/doc/11547480/The-Par...vel-David-Lewis since Lewis explains it far better than I ever could.
  5. It could be just like the compass, yes. But I don't remember Faraday ever using it like a 'predictor' of the future before, though that could just be my bad memory. The 'no matter what she does' is, in a sense, moot, because there's only one set of things that she will do i.e. what she will (or 'did') do. That doesn't explain why she, so to speak, 'chooses' to behave the way she does, but issues of free will under this view of time travel are murky at best. In a sense, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a greater issue that Faraday's death permits because whatever happened, happened. Maybe she knows her son plays an important role and is just trying to ensure he fulfils that. But there is a very real sense in which her motives don't matter. As Tim's post indicates, it's all built into the atemporal sequence of events anyway: she behaves that way because she (tenselessly) did behave that way, and maybe she realises this and so puts the effort in to ensure the future-past happens as it did, as if she can make any difference, or maybe there is some great significance to his death and she 'does' it for that, as if she could do otherwise. Maybe his notebook details some of the things she did/said or otherwise implies them, and she works from that. I would suppose, given the way she does behave, that at the very least she doesn't believe there's any way to avoid her killing her son, to avoid his going to the island. She perhaps has a fatalist attitude to everything that's going to happen to him (and her) until the time she goes to see Penny, and that alone could explain the way she is toward him. In short, who knows?
  6. I suspect it's simpler than that. She sacrificed him because she (in the past) knows that she (in the future) will sacrifice him. There's nothing she can do to stop that from happening, because she's already killed him. No matter what she does in her future, he will go to the island. On the notebook, presumably the one she gave him was blank and he filled it in as he went, given what we previously knew about Faraday. But his actions in this episode imply the notebook was already filled in, that he was following its content, suggesting the one she gave to him when he graduated was the same one she (presumably) takes from him after killing him.
  7. It just does. Why does anything exist at all? The universe is just such that something exists, and it is just such that the compass exists with the worldline it has (again, to be understood tenselessly). 'Why' questions are essentially redundant: the story of the compass as we've seen it is the full story, and it looks like nothing more than a brute fact of existence that it permits such objects, at least as far as Lost goes: one of the nice things about the compass and, Desmond's remembering his conversation with Faraday aside, the way time travel is working in the series is that it is consistent, there are no grandfather paradoxes. To speculate a little,
  8. It's not a paradox of any kind. Paradox involves inconsistency, contradiction. The compass has a perfectly consistent worldline, it just happens to be circular - or, since it makes sense to assume only one dimension of time is involved here, its latest* stage is contiguous with its earliest* stage, where asterisks indicate relative lateness and earliness strictly don't make sense when applied to the compass. It has, according to its chronology, no beginning, it has no end; that's weird and, as best we can tell, not what we commonly experience, but it involves no contradiction. The universe was tenselessly always such that the compass tenselessly had the worldline of (i) Locke gives it to Richard > (ii) Richard gives it to Locke > (iii) Locke travels back to (i). Something like the grandfather paradox is paradoxical because it involves two contradictory facts, namely the grandfather did survive and the grandfather did not survive.
  9. emps

    FNMDCSP Redux

    Come on now. We need more people.
  10. emps

    FNMDCSP Redux

    Sounds like a good candidate for a FNMDCSP.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.