“You can’t change the future”
+20 28 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- “You can’t change the future”
- Created: Apr 22, 2008
- Last updated: Jan 2, 2009
- After episode: 4.8: Meet Kevin Johnson
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
If you change the future you are breaking a natural law about the way time and causality work—so you can’t change the future, just like you can’t defy the law of gravity. But what I think the show is entertaining is the idea that breaking that law is possible—just with dire consequences.
— jazprof
I’m trying to collect some thoughts below about causality and temporality after rewatching a few episodes in the enhanced version beginning with what Dan says about not being able to change the future in “The Constant.”
Dan’s comment in one way doesn’t make sense to me because aren’t we always changing the future? That is, don’t our choices in the present always impact what’s going to happen next? Those questions get at a fundamental conflict in the show which is determinism vs. free will.
So if Dan is right, that seems to come down on the determined side of that conflict. On what basis is he saying this? As Occam pointed out in a comment to me about “The Constant,” in the experiment with Elouise the future has to be set in stone. If it isn’t, then Elouise could have wound up in some future in which she didn’t learn to run the maze, which in its turn would change the past, which would change the future—you could get an infinite loop going in which there’s an explosion of possibilities.
But what about the need for “course correction”—doesn’t that suggest that rather than a set in stone version of time, there’s at least a possibility for change—for the influence of the human will? And it’s just that influence that the universe has to course correct for? In other words, if there were no possibility of influence at all, then there would be no need to correct; there wouldn’t be anything TO correct.
The strongest argument for that possibility I think is the very fact that Ms. Hawking needed to step in and convince Des not to marry Penny. If Des had done that, I think what is being imagined is that he would actually be changing the future—he wouldn’t have gone to the island; he wouldn’t have been exposed to the EM radiation; he wouldn’t have been able to mind travel; therefore he couldn’t have gone back and changed his mind about marrying Penny—a version of the grandfather paradox. One needs course correctors like Ms. Hawking to step in, then, because there is that possibility. Dan—when he says you can’t change the future—is speaking empirically. If you change the future you are breaking a natural law about the way time and causality work—so you can’t change the future, just like you can’t defy the law of gravity. But what I think the show is entertaining is the idea that breaking that law is possible—just with dire consequences. And maybe that is what Ms. Hawking is getting at when she says that Des has to enact the future as it was meant to be otherwise everyone will die. Changing the future would result in a catastrophic looping of causality—an explosion of possibilities—such that life could not continue forward. We’d all be “lost” in that temporal looping.
One additional thought about what this might have to do with the whispers and the appearances of various “dead” characters. In the enhanced version of “The Beginning of the End,” a distinction is made between the two versions of Charlie that Hurley sees. In the police station he has a “vision” of Charlie; at Santa Rosa, Charlie is an “apparition” (and Charlie also says that he is “there” even though dead). A vision focuses on a subjective experience—it is something Hurley “has”; an apparition is less subjective—it is something Charlie is, rather than something Hurley has. So an apparition could be seen by more than one person (and Charlie is in fact seen by another patient). My contention is that the apparition (which also looks different than the way Charlie appeared on the island) is a version of Charlie as he might have been if the future had been altered. That does not mean the future was altered. In fact, despite all of Des’s efforts Charlie did die as he was always meant to. But I think the death was delayed (one might argue in fact that Jack saved him several times when he was supposed to die as well). And I think that the fact that those changes happened means that there are versions of Charlie which don’t have actual physical existence, but exist as possibilities and can manifest.
Whenever such changes happen, I think you wind up with some version of a person with varying degrees of manifestation. And that is perhaps what the whispers are. For instance, perhaps Sawyer was meant to kill Duckett on his first try—Christian Shephard stepped in and course-corrected him so that he went back and did what he was meant to do. But the fact that he didn’t do it the first time gave rise to the Duckett “whisper” on the island. And maybe this is what Miles actually deals with—not ghosts, but versions of people created by disruptions in what was supposed to be. I think that is also suggested by the change in the picture frames when Miles leaves the house of the woman whose grandson Miles has contacted. The change shows that temporally there was some kind of, albeit, minor temporal change.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charlie | Charlie Pace | 1.7, 1.2, 2.10, 1.24, 3.21 | 415 |
| Daniel | Daniel Faraday | 4.2 | 128 |
| Desmond | Desmond David Hume | 2.23, 3.17, 4.5 | 899 |
| Mrs. Hawking | Mrs. Hawking | 51 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.5 | The Constant | 2-28-2008 | Desmond | 156 |
love it +1
jazprof you are a brilliant theorist, I’m really glad you’ve posted a theory (it’s been ages!!) anyway I love the take on the visions and whispers - definetly prefer that than smokey manifestations or even ghosts…+1
My sediments exactly!! Jazprof, you are definately one of the few gifted writers/theorists on this site. Every post you make is spot on, and always a good read. This theory, like Van said, is much more plausible than smokie manifestations and “taller ghost walts” Plus the fact that Smokie hasn’t been anywhere to be seen this entire season thus far, leads me to believe that Smokie is not as important to the overall story arc than we all originally thought. Cuse and Lindeloff have said that everything comes down to science, and not so much supernatural, which your theory fits in with that rather nicely. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep posting great theories. It’s getting pretty lame in here lately with all the coffin talk. It’s Michael in the F’ing coffin, get over it. 57 hours and 13 minutes until S4ep9!!! T.J.I.L.D.(thank jacob its lost day)
When thinking about the events in this way - it certainly raises eyebrows about Ben’s orders to Mikhail:
“I need you to help me. I need you to help me clean up this mess I’ve made. I need you to kill Charlie.”
Great post Jaz, I swear I’ll get around to posting my theory about all of this at some point.
My question of course is the of course regarding if Charlie was supposed to die, yet he was the only one that could switch off the Looking Glass, that surely means the Looking Glass wasn’t supposed to be switched off. Surely that means that destiny hasn’t occured, and everythings about to go tits up?
The way I understood it is that if I am in the present, of course I can determine my future, but if I am in my “distant pass”, then I cant change my “close past” or my present.
You cant change what you have already lived. Thats why Desmond was almos driven to recall his actions when he was in the past.
Its like, you can travel back in time but only to be a espectator, not to change things that already exists.
And one paradox about Eloise. She traveled to the future, where she already knew the maze. Then she went back to the present, well, her present, and shi did the maze. But apparently she died before anyone could teach her how to run the maze.
Ok, I am trying to understand. Let me take your last example. When Miles went to “bust” the “ghost” of Mrs. Gardener’s grandson, you are implying that it wasn’t actually a ghost, but another possibility of the grandson’s existence? If so, then where did he go when Miles tells him to leave, and why would that change the picture frames?
By the way, I had never noticed the picture frames changing till you said that. I went back and rewatched the ABC enhanced version online to see it. Does everybody know about this? It seems really huge, like something we all should have picked apart to oblivion already. I mean, whatever Miles did directly influenced time and changed the future. Help me out here…
wicked!!
+1 on the theory! I think that as the Lost story has expanded over 4 1/2 seasons, the story has supported fate more and more. I think that when trying to deal in subject matters such as time travel, destiny, synchronicity, paranormal phenomena, etc. you automatically begin making arguments for fate over free will.
Free will was much more prevalent in the earlier seasons including Michael becoming a better father, Jin a better husband, Boone stopping his obsession with Shannon (ewwww!), Charlie getting sober, Sawyer becomming personable, and Jack becoming a true leader.
But ever since Desmond has entered the picture, fate has become more and more the focal point of the show. I think it all depends on whether you want a character driven story-line (free will) or a more plot driven story line full of wonder and mystery (fate).
wonderful post JP. Thanks for making me think.
Excellent comment DCLostie. I agree 100 % with your analysis. I find it hard to believe that what we will ultimately be shown is a fatalistic—this is what happens Lost, but when you get into time travel (a big mistake in my opinion) you have to deal with the potential paradoxes. The easiest way to deal with the paradox is for a knowlegable character, i.e. Daniel, to state that the future cannot be changed. Unfortunately, that basically kills the idea of free will. Seems like dealing with the time travel paradox has created another paradox. Damn.
Smoke monster, jaz. GIVE ME THE SMOKE monster!!!
(+1)
Jaz, It is always a pleasure to read your thoughts, about our losties. Hoping to see more when we finally get back to new episodes. +1
DCLostie,Your last comment reminded me of something I just read in an interview that Carlton Cuse, and Damon Lindelof did for TV Guide by Jimmy Kimmel.When asked if anyone had made a really lucky gues about cracking the code of Lost.
Cuse: “Even though we get asked a lot of questions about the mythology, Jimmy,we’re really trying to write a character show. We spend about 80 to 90 percent of our time talking about how the characters are lost in their own lives as people. The mythology is kind of the frosting on the cake.”
I always enjoy your theories!!! You make a complicated subject easy to read and understand.
Great read as usual Jazz., but this topic always gives me a headache :) +1
As we can see from Faraday’s journal the path from Event A to Event B can be taken either through real time or throughj imaginary time. In this exmple notice that event A always leads to event B. There is no free will; it is already predetermined.
brilliant stuff.
i agree with alot of the stuff you’ve said here. there are alot of of conflicting interests in the show, free will vs fate, science vs faith etc. I still find it odd that Mrs Hawking was so intent on making Desmond continue on the path hes ‘meant to’ take, if theres no possibility of him doing otherwise. I think that does prove as you say, that events in time can be changed, but with grave consequences.
i have a feeling that maybe these negative effects start occuring when the oceanic 6 leave the island, as Ben has said through the whole show that they can’t leave and that they’re not meant to, hinting that he has some knowledge of whats meant to happen somehow.
I think its going to be an important part of the show, that Ben, like Mrs Hawking, has constantly told our characters what they can and can’t do, and whats supposed to happen, like he knows what path things take.
The producers have said in a podcast that events that we have seen cannot and will not be changed (i need to find the quote though, because the way they worded it was interesting and added to my arguement), but does that mean that events we have not seen yet can not be changed?
so what i think is that the past and present can not be changed, but events that have not happened yet to our characters can be.
i think the show might be leading up to a huge event in the near future, and Ben and the others have knowledge of it and are shaping and guiding our characters on that path for whatever reason ( i think they’re ultimately the good guys), and its very important that the choices the losties make are their own (free will). I think maybe it will be about changing that event without the negative consequences occuring. just an idea i’ve had, man, i gotta write a theory on this.
+1 for getting me thinking their mate
You know, I really can’t stand people who are smarter, more talented or a better writer than I am… :)
Nicely done! A post like this is a joy to read.
Can you change the future? Of course you can.
Can you change destiny? Of course not or it wouldn’t be called destiny!
+1
Agreed about ‘course correction’ basically being the plaster (or “band-aid”) of time continuity. Freewill exists, but only in the subjective sense. Just because you have the apparent freedom to make a choice doesn’t mean somewhere, in some God-like book, all the choices you will ever make are predetermined.
So course correction exists to keep the time on track so those that manage to gain knowledge of their choices beyond the choice itself (I feel like the Oracle in The Matrix Reloaded!) don’t mess up everything.
In short: Lost doesn’t do paradoxes, and has things in place to retain that infrastructure.
Although I initially like your take on the manifestations and whispers, it doesn’t wholly hold up. For example, your concept works for future Charlie and Duckett’s whisper. But what about Yemi (“You speak to me as if I were your brother.”)? And what about how the whispers sound like a chorus, commenting on events as they happen? (That aspect of them has always messed up every theory concerning ‘the whispers’ for me - the manner by how they appear to be ‘in the moment’).
+1 all round. Nice to see you darkening this site’s door again!
Good theory. I agree with your thought about the picture frames changing. This also happened when Michael was in the hospital. There were minor changes to the room and equipment in the hospital room before and after he saw Libby. I don’t think Michael was dreaming. I think it was some sort of alternate time.
Nice to see you back jazprof. But I don’t agree with your whole post. I actually had a different interpretation of what Daniel meant when he told Des you can’t change the future. I think it’s the difference between “molding” the future and “changing” the future where we may disagree.
We are always “molding” the future. For example, by me being on LT right now instead of working is molding the future in which I will probably get fired from my job. I can choose to stop and go back to work, and that would mold a future in which I may keep my job.
But, when Daniel told Des that he cannot “change” the future I think he was implying that because Des was from the future, a future that is already happening, or that has already been “molded”. For example, if Des was able to “change” the future, why didn’t he just tell Penny to not let him take that boat trip no matter what, or contact all Oceanic survivors and tell them not to get on flight 815, or do anything to prevent his current predicament? He didn’t do any of this because he can’t “change” the future. Even if he did, bank in the present time (2004) he and all the Losties are still going to be on the island because that future has already been “molded” by past events that cannot be changed.
To summarize, if I do lose my job because of my addiction to this website, if “future me” in 2010 goes back to 2007 and disables this website, that does not mean that I will then have this job in 2010. I already “molded” that future and it is now set in stone.
Has jazprof disappeared? I was hoping to hear her responses to our comments.
that theory was great both to read and to think about lol, very impressive +1
Hey So_Lost—haven’t disappeared :-)—just end of the semester busy-ness. Will get back to y’all tomorrow.
Don’t tell me what I can’t do!