The Grand Unified Theory of Lost by bobby dang

In this article I hope to sketch a brief outline on the physics underlying the phemenology of Lost. I will argue that a scientific explanation to resolve the mysteries of the Island is necessary to set up a Kierkegaardian choice. Or that is to say a Leap of Faith for the viewers at the very last scene of the show. Based on these two assumption I will conclude my discussion with possible scenarios on the final scene of the final episode of Lost.

Scientific Explanation of Lost

Firstly, let's postulate that the Swan Hatch was on top of a physical phenomena producing Higgs-Boson, and see where this leads. According to physicist Holger Brech, Higg producing accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider, may produce exotic properties like backward causality [1]. Backward causality is define as the future effecting the past. However, backward causality undermines many intuitions about the arrow of Time.

A possible solution to the problem of backward causality is offered by physicist, John G. Cramer, who proproses, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) [2] [3]. According to Cramer [3]:

note: retarded waves are the past-to-future waves. Advanced wave are future-to-past waves.

The transactional interpretation views each quantum event as a ‘handshake’ or
‘transaction’ process extending across space-time that involves the exchange of advanced
and retarded waves to enforce the conservation of certain quantities (energy, momentum,
angular momentum, etc.). It asserts that each quantum transition forms in four stages: (1)
emission, (2) response, (3) stochastic choice, and (4) repetition to completion.
The first stage of a quantum event is the emission of an ‘offer wave’ by the
‘source’, which is the object supplying the quantities transferred. The offer wave is the
time-dependent retarded quantum wave function Ψ, as used in standard quantum
mechanics. It spreads through space-time until it encounters the ‘absorber’, the object
receiving the conserved quantities.
The second stage of a quantum event is the response to the offer wave by any
potential absorber (there may be many in a given event). Such an absorber produces an
advanced ‘confirmation wave’ Ψ*, the complex conjugate of the quantum offer wave
function Ψ. The confirmation wave travels in the reverse time direction and arrives back
to the source at precisely the instant of emission with an amplitude of ΨΨ*.
The third stage of a quantum event is the stochastic choice exercised by the
source in selecting one from among the possible transactions. It does this in a linear
probabilistic way based on the strengths ΨΨ* of the advanced-wave ‘echoes’ it receives
from the potential absorbers.
The final stage of a quantum event is the repetition to completion of this process
by the source and absorber, reinforcing the selected transaction repeatedly until the
conserved quantities are transferred and the potential quantum event becomes real.


It is important to note that superdeterminism, which was first suggested by John Bell, is a corollary of TIQM. Bell states [4]:


There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things

So in other words, a future possibility extends to the present, and eventually this world line (series of events connecting past-to-future) must materialize. If it we look closely to the properties of superdeterminism, it is congruent to the meaning of 'Fate' on Lost. Moreover, the concept of 'Destiny' on Lost is analagous to the world line necessary to fulfill superdeterminism. Therefore one's destiny (world line) fulfills one's fate (predetermined future outcome based on a TIQM transaction). Thus we have derived the relationship of Fate and Destiny on Lost with our model. Therefore, with TIQM and Holger Brech's conjecture, we have a model of Time to explain the events on the Island, ans set up “the Rules” [5] for Lost.

What happened on the Island

The anonymous energy of the Swan Hatch was in actuality a dense pocket of Higgs Boson. If Desmond didn't press the button to release the Higgs Boson, the accumulative effect of the Higgs Boson would set up a backward causality event. Desmond failed to press the button. This event moved through space-time to the past, and set up a world line in which the history of the Island was set up to fulfill Desmond not pressing the button. Thus whatever happened, happened.

Post Desmond Not Pressing The Button to Ben Turning the Frozen Donkey Wheel.

When Ben turned the frozen donkey wheel it also set up a backward causality event. Thus another world line was set up such that every event between Desmond not pressing the button and Ben turning the FDW was destined.

John Locke Turning the Frozen Donkey Wheel.

First let's pause and remember Christian-sum-MIB's (man in black) instruction for Locke to turn the frozen donkey wheel to save the Island. Also let us recall the conversation between the MIB, and Jacob:

MIB: Do you have any idea how badly I wanna kill you?
JACOB: Yes.
MIB: One of these days, sooner or later... I'm going to find a loophole, my friend.
JACOB: Well, when you do, I'll be right here.

I bring these facts forward to present the sub argument that the MIB had John Locke turned the donkey wheel because it would set up a quantum causal paradox. The quantum causal paradox is the loophole the MIB has been contriving for. The quantum causal paradox can be stated thus:

John Locke turned the FDW, sending the Losties to 1977, which set up a chain of events that led to the hydrogen bomb being detonated. If the hydrogen bomb did close the energy pocket, then there would be no need for the Hatch. Desmond would not have been responsible for forgetting to press the button, which caused flight 815 to crash on the Island. Without the flight 815crash, John Locke could never have turned the frozen donkey wheel.

But John Lock did turn the wheel, and the bomb did go off; A seeming temporal contradiction, right?

Yes, but we can resolve it with the many-worlds quantum theory [6]. In short, when Juliet set off the hydrogen bomb, it fractured the worldline into atleast two branches. Thus in one timeline the hydrogen bomb plan did not work (Timeline A), while in the other timeline the plan did work (Timeline B). The fracturing of the timeline is alluded to in the opening scenes of LAX part one.

In the opening of LAX-part one, Juliet hits the bomb with a rock, and everything fades to white. This is when the timeline fractures to an alternate timeline B. Timeline B opens with Jack back on flight 815, disoriented, and the plane doesn't crash on the Island. It seems that the hydrogen bomb plan worked.

Then we see flashbacks of Juliet hitting the bomb, and again, everything fades to white. But this time the Losties are still on the Island, observing the remains of the Hatch, and realizing their plan failed.

It also important to note that @ the same time the bomb goes off, creating a fractured timeline, Jacob is murdered. The MIB has found his loophole!!!

The Setup for the Kierkegaardian Choice.



Now that we have two timelines, we have a choice ahead of us; we must determine which one is 'real'. That is to say, what narrative arc do we want to be believe.

A kierkegaardian choice (leap of faith) can be describe as:


Kierkegaard's point is that no matter how rigorous your logical system, there will always be gaps. As these gaps are logical gaps, it is futile to try and bridge them. Instead, they can only be breached by a leap of faith. What characterises a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it. Faith is by definition that which cannot be proven or disproved. That is why a leap of faith is undertaken in 'fear and trembling" [7].


Here's what I believe will be the final scenes of Lost:


In Timeline B (hydrogen bomb did not work) all the Losties die. The final scene will be the death of Jack at the hands of the MIB. He'll be shot by the MIB, posing as Sayed, but first, a bullet will graze his neck.

In Timeline A (hydrogen bomb worked). The final scene will be of Claire having her baby. And she will name it Jacob. Fade to Black.

Then a shot of the MIB walking across an unknown desert with a wry grin on his face. This will allude to the fact that the MIB, is the same man in black, found in Stephen King's novel; the man in black who destroys civilization.

The Kiergaardian Leap of Faith

Having faith that Jack, and the other Losties, have found salvation in death; transcending into another timeline. Thus the neck injury in the opening scene of LAX-part one. Therefore, believing everyone who died on the Island has found peace, and a new life, through death.

Namaste.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0304
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507089
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
[5] http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_rules
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
[7] http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_sep2001.htm