Changing the Future (A Long Post)

I have shared a few thoughts about the contradiction of changing the past yet altering the future in various posts, but I thought I might need to expand a few of these thoughts, even though I will borrow from a few other posts out there. I really began to notice this contradiction while our island Losties (Sawyer, Miles, Daniel, Juliet, Locke) are in the past and what they do ‘changes the future’ – even though we have apparently seen the future. I think the island is a place where ‘course correction’ is allowed, and could be one of its main purposes for existing. This could be one of the main reasons we see the ‘game’ of seizing power and control of the island being played out between Charles Widmore and Ben.

Here are some of the factors I used to draw this conclusion, looking at a few inconsistencies that could be ‘reveals’ in a way.

Who actually is ‘traveling’ through time, therefore determining/manipulating the future.

Share with fellow Losties

Written by


I really am from Portland.

10 thoughts on “Changing the Future (A Long Post)

  1. Whoa kimberly! Way to just knock it out of the ballpark! An amazing post, and a brilliant read! I couldn’t say enough positive things about it.

    I love what you had to say about ‘the island’ needing a ‘constant’, and that it has the abilities to self correct. I like the idea, that every time ‘the island’ moves it is doing this, although not in any consequential order. It changes what must be changed regardless of where/when in time, to effect the final outcome.

    Daniel meeting up with Ellie in 1954 could very well account for her ‘future’ interest and involvement with ‘the island’. This makes sense to me. I’m still working through the Widmore side of things.

    I also believe you have hit on the people who are dead, being unstuck in time. In addition to the pregnant women and the healing, or lack thereof occurring.

    I think of it this way. Locke does not really say that going back to ‘the island’ will change the future. Only that it will save the people left behind. I’m not sure of how much Locke knows about the greater purpose, he is serving.

    As for changing the past, Daniel lied straight out for whatever reason. Perhaps there are limits and there is reason not to fully disclose this information at present.

    In response to ‘the losties’ going back to 2004, and who would be dead or alive. Dan says you cannot change the past, and to some degree this is true.

    However, if we consider ‘the flashes’ on ‘the island’ as not really going back to the past, but reliving the events this could be possible. If we don’t look at who dies or doesn’t along the way, therein lies the possibility where ALL on #815 could be alive in 2004.

    Here is how, this could happen. If the circumstances surrounding the #815 crash were altered to a safe landing, no deaths would occur.

    I don’t want to expand on this too much for now, because I haven’t worked through all of the ramifications of such.

    I know Team Darlton have said ‘dead is dead’, but they have also said they will do a season 7, and call it ‘the zombie’ season. Whenever they make a sick joke, it turns out to be true. Think, “there is no time travel involved in Lost.”

    I am in no way suggesting this will happen, but I AM saying we need to keep our minds open in order to solve the mystery!

    Thank-you for such a pleasurable read!

  2. Great post Kimberly ! A lot to think about.

    Isn’t your Lyle actually Neil Frogurt who gets a (well deserved) arrow in the stomach? Or are you pulling a Sawyer on us and deliberately calling him by another name?

    There is a lesson there. If your plane crashes on a deserted island and you miraculously survive… Shut up and be grateful you’re even alive or the island will take it all away.

  3. Kimberly you wonderful Imp!

    So does this bring us back to Shrodinger’s cat? Are all the people who died on the island (or off apparently in the case of Kate’s dad) fair game to end up on the island?

  4. Well, I wish I could say that I was giving Neil a nickname, but in fact, I was way too tired when I wrote this post and all I could remember was that it was one syllable with an “L”, so I went for Lyle. (I wish there was an edit button, because it’s way too repetitive, too.)

    Anyway, I am not savvy enough to make the connection with that cat “paradox” – but good call on bringing real theories to apply to our television show!

    I am pretty curious in uncovering the dead people connection, because it could seem to account for the ‘box’ reference that Ben mentioned to Locke when Locke’s ‘father’ appeared on the island. My idea about people who die on the island and end up ‘unstuck’ makes sense to me, and I think it could account for Locke’s dad being ‘brought’ there in order for Sawyer to ultimately kill him. It could have to do with this ‘course correction’ in a way. I don’t know…again…theorizing late at night just turns me into a rambler. 🙂

  5. kimberly, I think you’re right about ‘the magic box’ connection.

    Ever since Cooper showed up on ‘the island’, I have wondered what greater purpose, this served. Aside of the obvious.

  6. I think you’re over complicating things.

    “Deaths that occur in the past although the person is apparently alive in the future. So far this season, we have witnessed multiple deaths on the island while it is skipping through time periods. For example, NEIL (not Lyle as I originally stated – he

  7. Maccutcheon, it makes sense for Frogurt, but not necessarily anyone else.

    As we saw in Episode 4, Sawyer is on the island when Sawyer is on the island two months earlier watching Kate and Claire. If say, one of the Others encounters Sawyer and kills him, what happens?

    I like some of the other ideas out there about the whispers been the looping Losties, because that gives another perspective to what is happening for those skipping through time. But what else will we see transpire when they skip? They aren’t moving in a linear sense of time, as we saw with Yemi’s plane crashing and multiple skips since then.

    Another example…in Episode 4 whoever was on that second boat shooting at Sawyer/Locke/Juliet/Daniel etc. – they got shot by Juliet. When were they?

    How would that fit into what your take on this is?

    Overall, the bigger issue I am still thinking on with this is that whenever/wherever the island is skipping to has a major connection to the ‘course correcting’ powers at play.

    I, too, don’t think there is anything wrong with Daniel and Desmond meeting up either, because I think what we see happening in their interactions/relationship is a parallel as to what is happening with the island.

  8. Hey Kimberly. I’ve had to avoid reading your last comment until now (UK show times).

    The point about what if Sawyer got shot while Claire was giving birth. He didn’t get shot. If he had got shot then it would have been just that – Sawyer gets shot. Only we know he didn’t get shot because first time we saw Claire giving birth, there was no sound of gunshot – it didn’t happen. He could have maybe been taken out some other way, but that wouldn’t have caused a paradox because there’s no later point where we’ve seen him alive. The younger version of Sawyer lives on until the point when he starts skipping around in time – eventually he jumps to when Claire is giving birth, and someone kills him.

    But it’s all academic because Sawyer didn’t get killed.

    Whoever Juliette shot died. I don’t see how this makes a paradox. At the time of shooting, Juliette was part of that timeline. Picking a random assassination from real life.. say (sorry about this).. JFK. Imagine (for the sake of argument) … Oswald… was actually from the year 2009 and skipped back in time and shot Kennedy. Kennedy dies in 1963. In 2009, before Oswald skips back, Kennedy is no more because he was shot in 1963. No paradox. Sure Oswald played a significant part in creating this piece of history, but he hasn’t changed anything. At some point JFK was shot, Oswald finds out later in his timeline that it was him that did it.

Leave a Reply