SHARE:

One mans future…

….is another mans past.

Its July 20th, 1969. Neil Armstrong steps off the Eagle and walks across the surface of the moon. He speaks ” One small step for man, one giant leap for…AES?”
He says this while viewing a flag of a giant eyeball, in the exact spot where the U.S. flag should go.

How could this be possible. Could I have gone back in time, traveled to the moon, and planted my flag before he does? Or did he come to “my” present, when I travelled in time and I just beat him to the punch?

Why is the future of one, neccessarily the future of another? Its not.
At least on Lost its not. Its very easy to say you cannot change the past. Its common sense almost. But on Lost, the past to one, is the future/present to another. So why at that point, is it impossible to change anything. The only explanation of this is the loss of free will. Fate takes over, full control. But we have come to some agreement that one is in control, until they timetravel to the past. Whether it is a part of history or not, it is still the present from the perspective of the timetraveler.
Yes, I know all about history books, and how they work. Something happens in history, its recorded, and we learn about the past of the world. A time before our own.
What makes me crazy, and I am truly not saying I am correct, but when there are people, who are from different timeperiods, existing in one timeperiod, whos timeperiod is it? What is it the past to? Who is it the past to? If Sawyer goes back in time, but he has never experienced it before, can it really be his past? And for that matter, if he is in the past, hanging out with Horace, it is not Horaces past either. So whos past is it. The past of time? That doesnt even sound right. The past of true real world time? Isnt/wasnt Sawyer a product of the real world?

My point being, I understand why people…highbrow…says you cannot change the past. It makes sense. You cannot go back in time, in your life, and make something signifigant, change. Otherwise you may never acyually get to the point where you would have to change it, because it never happened. I cant help but argue this idea, for the simple reason that one persons past is anothers present/future. Who is to John Locke he cant do something…WHO? John, at this point, has accomplished just about everything he said he was going to accomplish. Yes, there is more to it, but Johnnys not done yet.
This is a hard subject for me to argue, I have been doing it since I have been posting. But I must say that I think if there is a question to dispute the ‘past cannot change’ theory, than the ‘who’s past is it’, could be a reasonable dispute.
Feel free to comment, argue, whatever. This is in fun for a reason. That reason is that twofold.
1) I am so tired of arguing this topic.
2)I, truly dont have a real, legitament argument. No real defense at this point.

I just want to make you aware of the question I continually ask myself. And the fact that I will be standing blindly beside this idea to the end.

Share with fellow Losties

Written by

A.E.S.

Abbot Enheduanna Schwarzschild

8 thoughts on “One mans future…

  1. I see time as being sort of a line and sort of a circuit. Think of the process of time as being a circuit board. The circuits represent the mechanism of the process of events, which attach themselves to a matrix of possible events. So time is a series of If-Then statements. Time itself is the power running through the circuit board. If the end of the circuit results in X function of the overall program, then there are a plethora of ways to get there, only the end result is certain – thus course correcting. If each member of Lost represents one board, then all their individual end games add up to the overall program end- the end of the world.

    Given this theory of things, so long as the actions of a circuit doesn’t cross over itself- creating a short- then the Losties should be ok, including Miles, who might meet his baby self. So Back to the Future rules would be in place.

  2. AES, you certainly know that LOGIC, is something which resonates with me in a big way.

    I love the analogy you have used to express this theory. It just makes so much sense.

    It really is a matter of perception, when it all comes down to these discussions. How anyone believes that change WILL occur, by subscribing to the ‘cerebrally restrained’ Faraday, I will never know.

    If there has ever been a statement in Lost, that has annoyed me to no end, it is, “Whatever Happened, Happened” one!

    They certainly have hoodwinked a lot of people with that one!

    Thanks for being ever so persistent with your time theories. I think it will pay off for everyone, in the long run!

  3. With this, I am going to go out on a limb here. This being in fun, I’ll throw one more thing into this after last nights episode. Young Ben had a very similar conversation with Sayid, to the one when he first met Richard. I am honestly, at this point thinking, that Mr Alpert, may the product of a John Locke style timetravel that, and may be the ‘original’ others leader. He is most likely a former normal human, who is in the process of completing his long task, or work for the island. His human traits may be gone, but Ben asking Ricky about remembering birthdays leads me to believe that he once had a normal life. Well, as normal as a life can be on Lost. Richard will not live to the end of the show, most likely only until his “work” is done, whatever it may be. Richard, the one who is to be believed as the old man of Lost, may be the youngest person we have seen thusfar. If my idea is true, he may be timetraveling from a future past the 2004-2007 that we have seen on the show. This could explain his agelessness. Like a gun that couldnt kill Michael until his work was done, Richards ‘gun’ is time and age, and the island wont let him die. If he somehow, accidently or purposely went back even to ancient times, like from the BlackRock or the statue, he could have work to do very far in the future, and is given a immortality pass from the island until it is complete.

  4. I’m going to attempt once, and only once, to explain my view of how the past cannot be changed and how that does not hinder free will. I’m not refusing to comment more than once because I think people won’t get it no matter what I say… I think you’re all very intelligent so please don’t take this refusal as a slight… I rufuse to comment more than once because I agree with AES whole-heartedly on at least one thing: I am so tired of arguing this topic.

    Sawyer, in the “past”, eatin’ brownies with Horace, is in his present. Horace, on the other hand, is… in his present as well.

    I’d like to throw the basic timeline out entirely… I think that’s kind of what you were getting at, right AES? It does not matter what year it is really. All that matters is that you realize that wherever you are, it’s your present.

    Does someone lose their free will just because they’re aware of some of the consequences of their actions? I don’t think so… I’ll change my mind when they show someone who knows the details of everything that they’ll do before they do them and tries to do things differently. But I think that things are the way they are in 2004 in part because Sawyer chose do whatever he’s done.

    Sawyer thinks before he acts and makes choices (and don’t try to tell him otherwise!). He’s not compelled by fate.

    Agree or disagree. At this point I’m ready to just sit back and see how things play out on the show on this topic.

  5. Highbrow, I agree on 2 things…1)tired of arguing, yes, what I was saying. 2)Sawyer causes the DI to get wiped out because lets face it. If there was a war on the brink already, and someone said he killed your men, but was not part of the other side, then for the next 3 years plays a leadership role for that side that he is NOT a part of…you are going to most likey assume one of two things. 1) he lied, or 2)he is NOW a member of your opposition…and he killed two of your men.

    But honestly, I will go to the end saying that change will or has occured in the past, most likely will.

    Highbrow, from another post, you didnt win, you never won, you never will win. Even if you went back to the past and changed something, I would make sure you still didnt win ;] but seriously…

    Not to push a button over and over, but didnt you yourself just say, that both Horace and Sawyer were in their present?
    I am going with the “you can always change your future” line, and ask, why cant they change their future if they are in their present?
    …well, maybe pushing a few buttons on purpose, but I just cannot let this go. I know you and the rest of the site are sick to death of me blabbing about it, but I just dont get it. Honestly, I have been wondering just what the point of it all is. So thats it, nothing changes, everything plays out as we already know it will. No suprises with the exception of the Losties being in the past and possibly having a hand in the death of the DI. The pregnancy problem either gets fixed in 2007 or beyond, and it would most likely be from some cure or medicine. We will see the Losties parish or live, whatever who cares, because we already know that nothing will change for the next 30 years. No faith brought back into the picture, causing a miracle of some sort to occure to save people before 2007. No science can fix what has been done. The rules of timetravel are set in stone, even though timetravel at this point in our ‘real’ lives is fictious science, and on the show more secrets about travelling through time pop up every episode.
    So Jacob cannot be released from whatever prison he needs help from until another 30 years, at least.
    Anything else that I left out that will NOT change? Only asking because Lost just got a little boring if this is all true, no?

    I know your done with the subject, if you choose not to answer, honestly, I understand. But as tired as I may be of the questioning of the subject, it is still a very important question on Lost.

  6. Ok, fine… one more answer.

    Yeah, I was totally kidding about the “I win” comment. I think you got that, but just in case…

    Anyway, my answer. Since they’ve already lived with the consequences of their actions in their past they cannot change what they did. They do have free will though. Say they know about something they did and they want to change it. They chose to do it differently. But then they must know that they chose to do whatever it was that way so they change that… then they know they did it that way so… see where I’m going? The only thing they can know is what actually happened and no matter what they will chose to do things in such a way that make sure whatever happened will still happen. They have already lived with the consequences of what they chose to do…

    It’s hard to explain what I’m thinking and it’s getting harder and harder as we go along…

Leave a Reply