I am challenging the view that "whatever happened, happened" or the "course correction" theory. I think that theory, espoused by all the people in the know on Lost (Linus, Hawking, Faraday, Widmore, etc.) is a long con or a shell game.
The whole tension and direction of the show is destroyed if there are not multiple timelines. If you'll remember from Back to the Future, Doc Brown explains that changing events in the past created a whole new timeline where those changed events caused effects that created an altered future. Without this concept of the possibility a changed future the concept that knowledgeable and experienced characters are working so hard to change things, well, it just rings hollow. I know some theorists have tried to explain that the main events are all written in stone, but the minor events are changeable, but this denies the fact that all major events are made up of a finite number of minor events. Predestination and some freedom of the will are not contradictory in a single timeline where no events can really be changed, but in a system where there can be multiple timelines and events can be changed, the concept of an overarching predestination or "fate" is palpably contradictory ! to agents within the timelines being able to operate willfully.
It is obvious that the people who are working the hardest to bring about certain caused effects are the same people who are constantly pushing the idea that the end cannot be changed. Faraday gives us the "two way street, but no new street" explanation (basically claiming that you can travel forward and back in time, but you cannot create a new timeline) all the while he is spending his whole life and all of his resources in hopes of traveling in time, supposedly in order to powerlessly watch the love of his life die? If he believes you cannot change time, why tell Charlotte not to ever come back to the island? If you are a prophet of "can't change things" like Eloise Hawking is, why work your whole life to bring about some effect that you cannot affect? If Desmond is destined to go to the island and push that button, why get angry when he decides to by the ring? Why lecture him that it is critical that he go the island and push the button? Why tell him the only great ! thing he will ever accomplish is to push that button? She could as easily have told him that chocolate bars would grow from Charlie's guitar, because no matter what she did... "You're gonna push that button Desmond".
This leads me to a fact that everyone knows... Charlie didn't have to die in the Looking Glass. He chose to die, but he didn't have to. No fate caused his death. It is clear that events on a magical island seemed to be conspiring to bring about his death, but if you watched his death, there was a way out. There are only two ways to look at that info...
1. Charlie was going to die without Desmond's interference, and each instance was equally probable, and any could have led to his death.
2. Charlie was facing multiple attempts on his life, but each was equally escapable.
If Charlie had died with the arrow in his throat, of course, then he doesn't contact Penny and he doesn't warn Desmond about the freighter. However, if Charlie had chosen to leave the hatch instead of dying in it, there is no reason to believe that further attempts on his life would have led to one that was fatal.
I guess here's my problem. We begin to personalize what would seem to be impersonal forces, which is what Locke does. We say "fate" made somebody do something, or "the Island" did something or other, when in fact it is more likely (even including magic and mysticism) that some personal force is causing those events. Fate is not a person, and if it is, then it is a God or some person with powers and not some word describing inevitable events. The point is that I think the writers have every intention of explaining the effects using cause/effect, rather than saying that it was all caused by some impersonal force and a bunch of robots fulfilling their "fate".
Think about Ben. Ben has all this information and always has a plan, but there is no one who works as hard as Ben to try to cause certain effects. Why get beat up every five minutes if whatever happened, happened? Obviously the people in the know - Ben, Eloise, Richard, Abbaddon, Widmore, etc. KNOW that it is possible that major events can be changed. They know it, even if they push their fate doctrine on the pawns they intend to use.
In effect, the producers have produced the same effect on Lost theorists. They have forced some unwritten rules of time-travel/paradox on the people when they have no intention of living by that doctrine. It's brilliant. It is clear that, without the proper (and maybe perfect) event manipulation, certain effects will come to pass, but it seems to be equally clear that the events that are happening are coming about because of evident causes, meaning that the principle mystical characters still truly believe that the results are in question.
Whatever Happened, Didn't Happen - or - Whatever Didn't Happen, Happens.
But that's just what I think.Theory by Faithful Scientist
The whole tension and direction of the show is destroyed if there are not multiple timelines. If you'll remember from Back to the Future, Doc Brown explains that changing events in the past created a whole new timeline where those changed events caused effects that created an altered future. Without this concept of the possibility a changed future the concept that knowledgeable and experienced characters are working so hard to change things, well, it just rings hollow. I know some theorists have tried to explain that the main events are all written in stone, but the minor events are changeable, but this denies the fact that all major events are made up of a finite number of minor events. Predestination and some freedom of the will are not contradictory in a single timeline where no events can really be changed, but in a system where there can be multiple timelines and events can be changed, the concept of an overarching predestination or "fate" is palpably contradictory ! to agents within the timelines being able to operate willfully.
It is obvious that the people who are working the hardest to bring about certain caused effects are the same people who are constantly pushing the idea that the end cannot be changed. Faraday gives us the "two way street, but no new street" explanation (basically claiming that you can travel forward and back in time, but you cannot create a new timeline) all the while he is spending his whole life and all of his resources in hopes of traveling in time, supposedly in order to powerlessly watch the love of his life die? If he believes you cannot change time, why tell Charlotte not to ever come back to the island? If you are a prophet of "can't change things" like Eloise Hawking is, why work your whole life to bring about some effect that you cannot affect? If Desmond is destined to go to the island and push that button, why get angry when he decides to by the ring? Why lecture him that it is critical that he go the island and push the button? Why tell him the only great ! thing he will ever accomplish is to push that button? She could as easily have told him that chocolate bars would grow from Charlie's guitar, because no matter what she did... "You're gonna push that button Desmond".
This leads me to a fact that everyone knows... Charlie didn't have to die in the Looking Glass. He chose to die, but he didn't have to. No fate caused his death. It is clear that events on a magical island seemed to be conspiring to bring about his death, but if you watched his death, there was a way out. There are only two ways to look at that info...
1. Charlie was going to die without Desmond's interference, and each instance was equally probable, and any could have led to his death.
2. Charlie was facing multiple attempts on his life, but each was equally escapable.
If Charlie had died with the arrow in his throat, of course, then he doesn't contact Penny and he doesn't warn Desmond about the freighter. However, if Charlie had chosen to leave the hatch instead of dying in it, there is no reason to believe that further attempts on his life would have led to one that was fatal.
I guess here's my problem. We begin to personalize what would seem to be impersonal forces, which is what Locke does. We say "fate" made somebody do something, or "the Island" did something or other, when in fact it is more likely (even including magic and mysticism) that some personal force is causing those events. Fate is not a person, and if it is, then it is a God or some person with powers and not some word describing inevitable events. The point is that I think the writers have every intention of explaining the effects using cause/effect, rather than saying that it was all caused by some impersonal force and a bunch of robots fulfilling their "fate".
Think about Ben. Ben has all this information and always has a plan, but there is no one who works as hard as Ben to try to cause certain effects. Why get beat up every five minutes if whatever happened, happened? Obviously the people in the know - Ben, Eloise, Richard, Abbaddon, Widmore, etc. KNOW that it is possible that major events can be changed. They know it, even if they push their fate doctrine on the pawns they intend to use.
In effect, the producers have produced the same effect on Lost theorists. They have forced some unwritten rules of time-travel/paradox on the people when they have no intention of living by that doctrine. It's brilliant. It is clear that, without the proper (and maybe perfect) event manipulation, certain effects will come to pass, but it seems to be equally clear that the events that are happening are coming about because of evident causes, meaning that the principle mystical characters still truly believe that the results are in question.
Whatever Happened, Didn't Happen - or - Whatever Didn't Happen, Happens.
But that's just what I think.Theory by Faithful Scientist
