“Anti-changers”…What constitutes change?

What would be enough for you to believe the past has been altered?
The death of someone that is supposed to live, a conversation that didnt occur the first time?
What would it take, to make you believe change is possible?
Do you think change is only on a large scale, and everything else is just details, or would something as simple as a word spoken during past time travel, that didnt occur the first time be change?
What would be enough to make you believe that changing the past is possible?

Share with fellow Losties

Written by


Abbot Enheduanna Schwarzschild Name meaning: -Abbot: Father defined by or in religious connotation/definition. From the beginning, Lost was riddled with religious tone and it was obvious it would play some sort of role. Seemed fitting to start here. -Enheduanna: Mesopotamian High Priestess and the modern civilization’s first recorded poet. I created the name after season 1. John explaining backgammon history to Walt spawned the idea that the island may have a link yo the beginning of civilization and maybe even time itself. It was “poetic” and important to add this to my pseudonym. I needed the mother of poetry in modern civilization to match the religious “Father” in my first name. -Schwarzschild: Reference to Karl Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild Black Holes. Smoke monsters, hatches, and curing paralysis doesn’t point to black holes…but the sci-fi elements ran deep and obvious. The wheel moving the island and transporting Ben felt like it got plucked from my imagination. A.E.S.

3 thoughts on ““Anti-changers”…What constitutes change?

  1. I think change on a large scale – and I think over a large period of time.

    So, if someone lives an extra 5 minutes there are tiny changes that can be easily ‘undone’. So, if he impregnates someone in those 5 minutes, that new kid could die young or have an inconsequential life … be just another ant or blade of grass. If he grows up and invents something to kill and island full of researchers, either a) something happens to it, b) someone else is born to safe them, or c) they all get gassed.

    If the 1st someone dies on time and option C was the end game, then the invention (or a similar one) will be be invented to off them. It could be years later or sooner, but just the ‘right’ non-ant people that needed to die will die regardless of the senario.

  2. To me, i sort of feel that you can’t change anything that happened and had great consequences. Or that you can perhaps change the conversation, or the way someone dies, but the person is always going to end up with the same effects of that conversation, and that person is always going to die. Does that make any sense at all? i’m so confused on this subject. I feel like i don’t believe in change at this point, but i don’t like that there is no change, and i’m finding i’m constantly looking for a way to disprove what i think. I want change to be able to happen. I just don’t know that i’m convinced that it can. And no change feels like it just leads to time looping, so i just dont’ get it.

  3. AES, i’m gonna try to put it simple as what this complex matter means to me:

    For me, change can happen in the way Desmond alters that paarticular case of Charlie’s death, or extends his life.

    But the fact remains that he is destined to die, it is his fate. Choice is in between, changes can happen, eben more if someone who has information from future events comes in play to a “past scenario” to try to alter it from happening the exact same way he/she saw or was told it had already happened.

    Nevertheless, those mayor events, the ones the universe seems to “know” that if changed will cause a “butterfly effect”, (causing a chain reaction of events that will ultimately produce a multi expandable paradox that could destroy space and time itself), cannot be changed . But it won’t (so don’t worry :P), cuz, the universe won’t let it, by any means necesary.

Leave a Reply