FANDOM

Welcome to Sean's Talk Page
To leave me a message, please click here
Note: If you leave a message, please check this page for replies.


Sean's Archived Talk Pages



Sean's Talk Page- An explanation

As some of you might be aware, I have been banned from Lostpedia. Please see below for a discussion of this ban.

Those of you who know my work, will understand that I am passionate about Lost, passionate about Lostpedia, and will not let a little thing like being banned stop me from expressing my views. However, the only place that I have in Lostpedia for expressing my views is on this talk page. I cannot post anywhere else. This means that if you want to discuss something with me, or respond to what I have to say, it must be done here. As you will understand, I have no way of actually archiving these pages, so I am being forced to delete material in order to keep the page structured sensibly. However, I have created a 'workaround' with a temporary archiving fix, using the 'compare edit' facility:


Temporary Archiving:

  1. Talk Page as at 10.00am 24th March 2010

Material related to Episode Theory Pages

Recon/Theories

An Update on the Time Fracture Theory

I have not seen this anywhere else, but no one seems to have considered the consequences of possible meetings between FS Sawyer, FS Charlotte and FS Miles' father for the 1977 & post 1977 vartiants of the time fracture hypothesis. Charlotte was 6 in 1977, and she may have been in Dharma for all of that time. Sawyer, as head of security, was a prominent figure in Dharmaville, and if Charlotte had been in Dharmaville in 1974-1977, although she was only 6 at the time, on seeing the same person some 27 years later, surely she should have wondered where she had met him before. Both FS Lara Chang and FS Pierre Chang would definitely recognise FS Sawyer as the Sawyer who was the head of security, having worked with him for 3 years. Furthermore FS Pierre Chang would be aware of all the time travel implications, and would know what was going on. In addition, as Dharmaville was such a small community, it would be likely that FS Pierre Chang would know that FS Charlotte was one of those evacuated from Dharmaville in 1977.

These facts do not sit easy with the 1977/1977+ hypotheses. However, while this raises important questionmarks about their tenability, there may be other , more simple explanations:

  1. Charlotte only went to the island only just prior to July 1977; she was very young, and had no real chance to meet OT Sawyer.
  2. Pierre Chang died, and Lara Chang remarried. The person FS Miles referred to as his father is someone else.
  3. Despite the fact that FS Sawyer and FS Miles work together, they never discuss families, an neither of FS Miles' parents have ever seen FS Sawyer or seen a photograph of him.

While it is possible to 'explain away' these phenomena, we are now encountering the realm where, in two consecutive episodes, Dr. Linus and Recon, while the events are not exactly incompatible with the hypotheses, statements made, evidence presented and relationships between characters need convoluted explanations in order to make the theories work. This reduces their probability of being correct.

Ab Aeterno/Theories

Comment on the current state of the Ab Aeterno/Theories Page.

As at this edit, which is nothing out of the ordinary, the Ab Aeterno Theory page is a real mess. There are discussions, counter discussion irrelevant articles which have nothing to do with the episode. Why, for example is the section: The_FS_Timeline_is_the_result_of_everything_occurring_on_the_Island_right_now there at all? There was no FS timeline shwn in the show this weerk (as far as we know), and the content of this theory could have been put in Recon/Theories or in the main theory page about the FS Timeline. I feel very frustrated by the fact that I cannot do any editing, and I know that other editors are busy with more valuable work on the main Ab Aeterno Page. However, these theories pages soon become unreadable with comments which are quips, asides, irrelevancies, and then, because people can't be bothered tyo wade through the mire, the same comment gets posted three or four times in different places. <Sigh>

  • I have just spent 2 hours starting a major tidy up of the Ab Aeterno theories page. It was worse than chaotic. I nearly had three aneurysms just thinking about it. I removed a heap of "Theories" to the talk page, I gave reasons, I suggested a discussion on the Talk page. I edited heaps. Everything was restored! Not a single post by any of the restorers on the Talk page. I have given up (for the night - my night). Sorry to whinge. --Charles Kane 11:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Time Fracture Update

The variant of the time fracture hypothesis which claims that the fracture occurred prior to 1977, as a result of the perturbations created by the time-travelling losties, must, by the events in this episode, push the fracture point back to before 1867. This is because, in one of the time-travelling episodes, Tawaret is shown standing. This means that the Losties were at a time prior to Black Rock destroying the statue. This variant of the hypothesis is based on the notion of the Butterfly Effect, the idea that small changes to events (i.e. the appearance or non-appearance of time travellers in the past), can have huge consequences on future developments in that timeline. However, the consequences of accepting this hypothesis are the following:

  1. That for the past 137 years, prior to the events of September 22nd 2004, events in the FST & OT were somehow kept on track, so that at that very date, the same group of people boarded Oceanic 815. In one timeline the plane crashed; in the other it did not. The notion that the two timelines somehow 'kept on a parallel course with remarkably similar events' seems totally at odds with the premise of the theory, that it was caused by the "Butterfly Effect", which presupposes that little changes cause massive effects to echo down the timeline.
  2. That on 'every occasion when the time travellers appeared (depending upon how you count these there are either 13 or 14), a timeline split must have occurred. This means that depending upon which timelines we consider, and which of the bifurcated timelines the time-travellers visited, there are at least 13 and possibly as many as 2^14 different timelines resulting from this process.

As a theory, this variant faces massive difficulties in explaining (a) exactly why the 'butterfly effect' is important in creating the split timeline, but then can somehow not be regarded as a relevant issue once the timeline is flowing, and (b) why no other timelines were 'created' as a result of the other time-jumps (or if they were, what happened, and why they are not relevant to the storyline). I am sure that protagonists fro these theories can come up with good 'workarounds' to provide explanations for these facts, but the fact that these workarounds are required tends to suggest that the theory is not based on very firm footings.


There is a second variant of the pre-1977 fracture theory, which posits that in July 1977 the timeline fractured into two, and as a result history was rewritten retrospectively for the new timeline, all the way back to the start of the universe. There are strong theoretical arguments as to why this is not possible. However, one must bear in mind always that this is a fictional drama, and the writers may not have thought through all the technical implications of such a splitting of timelines. The events of Ab Aeterno do not material affect this theory, except to say that in this variant, there would either need to be two separate Black Rocks, one in each timeline OR there would need to be another reason as to why the Statue of Tawaret was destroyed prior to the island sinking, as there was no evidence of the remains of Tawaret in the underwater island.


Summary of the position at the end of Ab Aeterno

I fear that things are not looking too healthy for any of the time fracture theories. They all are beginning to show cracks of one form or another, and they are needing a lot of plaster and whitewash just to keep them intact and standing upright. Given the other events of Ab Aeterno, and the reliance on 'unscientific' explanations such as "course correction" to sustain any of the fracture hypotheses, it is looking increasingly like the two timelines FST & OT are derived from some other source, and do not admit a scientific explanation arising from established principles of quantum mechanics, 'theoretical' time travel (such as a Kerr Metric on a rotating black hole) and/or chaos theory.


Comments & Discussion
  • I think this is the first time I have seen you accept the dramatic realities of the script and the at least partially unscientific resolution that is seeming increasingly likely. From the outset mixing the time travel/time split stuff with clearly magical/spiritual was always going to be a challenge. I think tonight that challenge hit the wall. I suspect that a partially recognizable scientific (no make that Science Fiction) solution is still possible but the main questions may now revolve around how to get the two lines together (ie how to put humpty .....), how to stop MiB (surely there is no doubt that he is the malevolent one?) and what will happen to our friends Richard, Sawyer, Kate, Hurley et al. The great beauty of all this is that I have no idea! --Charles Kane 11:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • In the writings on here, you are right. In my own mind, well, not so much. I started all this because I did not believe for one moment that a 'Juliet hit the bomb and we all ended up on the plane going to LA X' was a reasonable hypothesis. On my scribblings on bits of paper, and the odd Word document, I started to piece together a Reductio ad Absurdum argument, a Proof by Contradiction. As a mathematician, I am used to assuming the opposite of what I am trying to prove, then showing that these assumptions inevitably lead you to contradictions. The famous example is where you prove that the square root of 2 cannot be represented as a fraction, by assuming it can. This leads to the ridiculous state of affairs where an irreducible fraction is reducible. Therefore I started out assuming that Juliet hit the bomb, and trying to reach a contradiction. Unfortunately I couldn't find one, and I found myself in the position of all the 19C mathematicians who had tried to prove that Euclid's 5th postulate could be derived from the other four, and in the process ended up inventing Non-Euclidean Geometry. In my case, I ended up inventing a whole raft of time fracture theories and their variants, which I could not get to go away. I think though, that there is increasing evidence that none is going to work, and while there may be some handwaving science from an FS Faraday, or an OT Faraday who time-travelled to OT 2007 and communicated with Desmond before he was killed in 1977, my guess is that if there is a scientific explanation, it won't be in terms of fractured timelines and bombs.--Sean Sheep 12:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


The Origin of the "Hostiles"?

The episode cleared up one thing. The 'Hostiles'/'Others' were not descendants of slaves from the Black Rock. That means that the 'Hostiles' we saw as early as 1954 must have either been brought to the island in the period 1870s-1950s, or were descendants of some other people who had been brought there, or were already on the island (elswhere), while the events of Ab Aeterno were happening. Whatever is the case, there is at least one more group of people who have been brought to the island whose story that we have never seen.

Jacob, MiB & the Paradox of the Liar and a possible Forgotten Trope

The Jacob/MiB storyiline is clearly being written in order to undermine our understanding of truth & falsehood (as well as good and evil). An important logical paradox , the so called Paradox of the Liar is relevant here. Epimenides is supposed to have made the statement: "all men are liars", implying that as Epimenides is a man, he is not telling the truth. If so, then all men are not liars, and therefore what he says could potentially be true, but if it is true.... etc. etc.

Well, you get the idea. A one-time interesting variant of this was Ramond Smullyan's Knights and Knaves problem, in which you meet a knight & a Knave. One always tells the truth, and the other always lies - so how can you find out which is which?. In order to get the right answer, you either have to ask the question "If I asked the other guy who the liar was, what would he say?", or "If I asked YOU, who the liar was, what would you say?". The Knights and Knaves scenario has been done to death in computer games, so much so it's a Dead Horse Trope.

However, it is now puzzling that we seemingly cannot trust Jacob OR MiB, be cause we don't know which one is telling the truth. It is well known one of the inspirations for Lost is Myst, a 1993 computer game. Knights & knaves would never be used these days in any computer game, but it may possibly be that it has become a forgotten trope, and that if it is eventually used in Lost it will be via Hurley, who, with his knowledge of the genre, subverts the trope by some devious and amusing hurleyesque device.


"What lies in the shadow of the statue": ...he who would save us all. If any of this is true, Jacob is the liar, and MiB is telling the truth.


Comments & Discussion
  • How then would you interpret the actions of a mass murderer?--Charles Kane 12:05, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • I just thought this episode was setting us up for something, and I did no know what. Clearly we are being told that "nothing is real", but we have now had three separate characters claim that the island is Hell, where you go when you die etc: Dave (Hurley's friend), Anthony Cooper, and Richard Alpert. I think it was established pretty conclusively that it is not 'Hell', but there is something very weird here. The whole computer game scenario has raised its head again big stylle. All of this was prevalent in S2 & 2, with the hatches etc. However, it cannot be as simple as a 'computer game'; there must be much more to it than that. I don't know if you know the ending to the Narnia Chronicles. The kids all die in a train wreck, but haven't realised it. They end up in Narnia, but realise Narnia was a lot bigger & more encompassing than they realised. In fact Narnia contained a copy of their real world (or it might have actually been the real world). Anyway the kids were dead/had been dead... when? since the beginning of the book, the entire series. In the end it didn't matter. I keep coming back to the Modal Realism stuff, which, I keep saying is like the quantum mechanics but with a more philosphical and/or literary flavour. Currently that is my preferred explanation of the FS, but I am not sure how all the other stuff fits in. What I do know is that death and dying is part of the explanation.--Sean Sheep 12:34, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Richard gave us "we are all dead and have been from the outset" at the cosy little scene beside the fire where the bemused Frank speaks for all of us with his laconic "Now, how the hell do you think that happened"? It very much felt like it was a clue from the writers to us - "well there you go, we've said it, and that's NOT the elephant in the room" --Charles Kane 12:51, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • It's really difficult to imagine how the writers get out of this without some sort of dream/purgatory/computer game scenario, all of which are really very tired. There is one variant that I have never seen used, it was in a Robert Sheckley story called Dimension of Miracles. The main character won the galactic lottery (even though he had never entered), and the whole story was about him trying to find his way home through a load of alternative realities; in the end he just settled for one, even though he knew it wasn't the right one. I just feel that the island somehow acts on memories of the living to resurrect the dead probably in their minds, but even 'for real' (whatever that means), and I keep going back to the 'ancestor-worship' history, "Jacob saves us all on the hard drive" scenario. I've even played with the idea that no time travelling existed at all, it was recreated using the minds of the dead Dharma folks in the pit.--Sean Sheep 13:13, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Number of Candidates and Jacob's Plan

Ab Aeterno has Ilana with a list of six candidates. In Recon she tells Sun that there are only six candidates left. As Locke is dead, Locke cannot have been on her list of candidates in the first place, otherwise she would have said "there are six candidates", or "there are only five left". Jacob gave her the list. Locke was on the Lighthouse & the wall. This means that Jacob knew that Locke would die, and therefore did not include him on the list. If he is not a candidate, then why is he there? He had been singled out by the MiB as the vessel who could be used for his purposes. MiB thinks Locke is a candidate, but he is not, never was. It is a scam by Jacob, to trick the MiB into selecting Locke for his vessel. Clearly in order to leave the island, MiB needs to 'become' Jacob, and by killing Jacob, and assuming the form of one of his candidates, he thinks he can do just that, and leave the island. However, he will find he is Locke'd into the wrong body and cannot leave. However, in order to redress the balance, MiB will need to be killed, so that Jacob can re-assume control from inside the new candidate's body.

Comments & discussion on Candidates
  • I'm not quite following you on your reasoning behind the claim that Locke was never on the list. Is there some indication that Jacob could see the future by using the Lighthouse and thus knew that Locke would die? If not, do we really know exactly when Jacob visits Ilana and gives her the list? Is it not possible that Ilana got the list before Locke died, that Locke was at some point a candidate but now that he's dead he no longer is?? Perhaps you've already answered this question in what you've written here and I'm just not following you. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   17:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes precisely that. Jacob gives a list of SIX candidates to Ilana. In Dr. Linus, the transcript says: "SUN: Wait... you said candidates. How many are there? ILANA: Six. There are only six left." She knows Locke has died. So therefore if Locke had been on the list, she would have said "there are only FIVE left". She had six, she's still got six; there are only six left. Locke is not included, and was never included. Jacob had him as a candidate on the wheel, but he did not put him on the list he gave to Ilana. Therefore he knew Locke would die.--Sean Sheep 18:11, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Have we been told that the list Jacob gave to Ilana had 6 people and I just missed that? I am entirely capable of missing something as important as that. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:20, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think so. I have only watched it once, but the story summary agrees with what I remember. Check this out.--Sean Sheep 18:25, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't believe I missed something as important as that. I think I was just impatiently waiting to see Richard sometime back in the 14th or whenever century and thinking, what is this bullshit, just show me the Richard stuff, dammit! Heh. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:46, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


The changes in time-lines start happening before 1867 (proposed edit to Ab Aeterno/Theories

The following is the material from the Ab Aeterno/Theories page, and how I would edit if, if I could escape these confines:

Theory: The timeline Fracture occurs prior to 1867

  • We now know that the statue was destroyed in 1867. We also know that Sawyer's group saw the back of Statue of Taweret in one of the time flashes. Therefore, that time was the earliest to which they travelled to to as far as we know. Although they did not appear to affect events, based on the Butterfly Effect, their very existence in that time-period would have changed the future. If flight 815 never crashed and they never travelled to that time, the timeline after 1867 would have been very different. It is hypothesised that this is exactly what happened in the FST. However, the counter-argument to this is that the Butterfly effect does not necessarily apply in the canon of Lost. In Lost, the byword is "Whatever Happened, Happened".
  • There are two key effects working together: 'Whatever happened happened' (WHH) and branching. The bomb caused the branching in 1977. If the group traveling to pre-1867 caused a divergence in history, it created a new branch-universe, but kept their own universe in a 'WHH' state; they've always been there, just as they've always been in the 70s DHARMA. They are not changing the past, but the actions they've taken, instead of creating a paradoxical situation (since it would prevent them from crashing and from returning in time and so on...) creates a branching. Paradoxical energy gets diverted into a new branch-universe.

REQUEST: Charles, can you please revert This Edit, which appeared to move all of the time fracture material from the Ab Aeterno/Theories Page.
I have proposed a new re-dit here, with removal of all the chat. I also moved the Desmond stuff below, together with your comment incorporated your comment.--Sean Sheep 08:59, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Think I've come here too late, the link won't allow a revert, and I don't know what you want posted. Clarify and I'll do it. Is it something I moved to the Talk page - if so refer me to it and I'll try and fix it, but I'm not sure if there is any hope for the Theories page - I'm going to have another go in about 14 hours having just wasted the last two , all my cleanup was undone.--Charles Kane 12:05, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Move these to the discussion page

Rationale for moving to discussion page:

Many of these are just comments on the theory/theories above, and are not theories themselves. Others are simply restatements of theories that have been posted on previous episode theory pages, and do not draw on any new events in Ab Aeterno. Yet others are just nothing to do with the timeslit theory at all.--Sean Sheep 21:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


  • Even if the split in time was caused by the bomb, its effects in events can go before the detonation e.g. Faraday never told the Others to bury the bomb, Sayid never shot Ben, and so on.
  • The sideways universe is looking more and more like one simply without Jacob's influence, rather than what happened when the bomb went off. Consider the third season finale, where you assumed you were watching a flashback with Jack drinking etc. It turned out to be a flashforward of them being off the island, then we spent an entire season seeing how we got to that point. The Sideways universe is actually showing us where the characters end up after the events of the series' finale. An alternate version somehow kicked off not by the H-bomb, but by something we've yet to see.
    • This can not be possible. Throughout season six we have seen dead characters in the flash-sideways (Charlie, Charlotte, Arntz, and Eathan Rom). If the flas-sideways is really life after the island then somehow all thoses characters would have to come back from the dead. AND, it wouldn't make sense for Sawyer to go on a date with Charlotte if he knows Juliet is living.
      • This absolutely CAN be possible. The events of 2007 can unfold in a final "reset" that leads to the events seen in the sideways universe. We are viewing the show through characters forward progress not in chronological order (they have jumped between 1867, 2004, 2007 etc), the characters may very well create the 2004 "sideways" timeline destroying the island/its influenc before it ever effects them in the first place. It fits with Jacob's "it only ends once" being a final reset, AND with Faraday's "there can only be one timeline." We may very well be watching the "present" and the epilogue of the series at once, and in the season finale they converge.
  • Did anyone notice during "The Incident" that when Jacob and MIB are talking on the beach, it's nice and sunny out and it shows the Black Rock out in the bay. In Ab Aeterno, it was washed onto the island by storm. What gives? Error?
    • Possibly, but it's also entirely possible that the ship was simply passing by the island. Jacob may have actually created the storm, which hit them at night, and caused them to turn back towards the land they'd seen earlier. We only know the prisoners' reaction to the statue, not the crew who definitely would have seen it during the day as they passed as well. or could simply be an error, or an entirely different ship.
    • Leaving aside a specualtion that Jackob or MiB can create a storm, it was never said that the ship they are watching is indeed the Black Rock. It could be "a ship" - Jackob said to Richard that there were many people on the island before the Black Rock.
    • It's entirely possible that it was the same ship at different times. The ship could have been anchored or even fishing during the first conversation and the violent storm caused them to shipwreck on the island.
  • In Flashes Before Your Eyes, pictures on the wall change during a conversation between Desmond and Widmore (verification needed). Ignoring course correction, this suggests that actions in the present can alter events in the past, which of course might result from characters going back in time after the event in the present. We don't know yet what past event caused the split, or even whether it has yet occurred.
    • Cuse has confirmed that this was an error (i.e. blooper) which arose because of the unexpected need for a reshoot.--Charles Kane 08:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sean's Blog Posts

Comments on other People's Blogs

Dretzle's post "I can't believe I was right"

Absolutely excellent post, and I really think you might be onto something. Not surprisingly a few people have said that "it can't be biblical", and of course it isn't. Perople are being talked to by Jacob and MiB in a language they can understand. The island is so mysterious because it is incomprehensible. Literally, incomprehensible. People can only understand the island in the way in which they think. Richard is a god-fearing 19C Spaniard. He lives & breathes the Catholic Church. To him heaven & hell are real. That is his view of the island, and being dead makes sense to him. When Dharma came to the island they viewed it as a scientific experiment, becuse that was the only way they could relate to it. Our Losties thought that it was all a Survivor/Big Brother type stunt, an experiment in Social |Constructivism, because they had all been brought up with the reality TV genre. What is going on transcends all of these, and is all of these at the same time.--Sean Sheep 13:44, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


Departure of User:DaemonRising: 'Goodbye Lostpedia'

I find this news all very depressing. DaemonRising was a prolific contributor to this site, and wrote passionately and maybe sometimes rather hot headedly (but don't we all). His contributions to the theories pages and the blog pages were intelligent and thoughtful. I didn't always see eye to eye with him, and we often disagreed about things. However it is possible to disagree with someone and still respect their ideas and their intelligence. I am really saddened by this turn of events. I would send DaemonRising a personal note, but for the fact I am under house arrest on this page.

Sean's Own Blogspot

Possible Blog on Timelines

Just re-reading some of the things that Damon & Carlton said at the beginning of Season 6:

CUSE: The archetypes of the characters are the same and that’s the most significant thing. Kate is still a fugitive.

LINDELOF: we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real.

LINDELOF: We will say this: season 6 is not about time travel. It’s about the implications, the aftermath, and the causality of trying to change the past. But the idea of continuing to do paradoxical storytelling is not what we’re interested in this year.


Jeff Jenson's Blog Feb 2nd 2010

In summary:

  1. Both the OT & FST are real; they are not alternates
  2. Season 6 is not about paradoxical storytelling and time travel.
  3. Season 6 is about what happens after you change the past, and what this does to causality.

In the rest of the blog, it is clear that D & C came up with the idea of the FST & OT, when discussing what would happen after an attempt to reset, and that characters had not realised that if that were to happen, then everything would be changed, not just them. However, that is not to say that

I have searched all the way through transcripts, and the only documented time that we know that history was changed was in respect of Desmond and Faraday. There are three separate incidents which appear to change what actually happened:

  1. In The Constant , Desmond travels to Oxford to meet Faraday. He tells him to set the apparatus to 2.342, oscillating at 11 Hertz. This allows Faraday to transfer Eloise's consciousness from the future into Eloise's body.


Finding themselves in daylight once more, the group makes their way to the beach. Miles now appears to be suffering nosebleeds. He asks Daniel about it, and Daniel says it's related to how much time you spend on the Island. This confuses Miles, who points out that the survivors (who have not shown any symptoms to this point) had been on the Island for months before the freighter arrived. Daniel asks Miles if he is sure that he has never been on the Island before. On the beach, they find that the camp exists at that moment, but seems disheveled, with a number of the structures in disrepair and all the supplies either stolen or consumed. An Ajira water bottle, found inside one of the canoes

With no one nor the Zodiac in sight, the group wonders where everyone has gone. Noticing a pair of wooden outrigger canoes, they speculate that the other survivors may have fled from attackers. Inside one of the canoes, Sawyer finds a water bottle with a label for Ajira Airways, which Juliet recognizes as an international airline based in India. They take one of the outriggers and begin paddling toward the Orchid. After a short while, they notice that unknown people are pursuing them in the other outrigger. As the other canoe gains on them, the people in it begin to shoot. After trying to escape for a while, the group has Juliet returning fire with a rifle, apparently hitting one of the pursuers. Before the pursuers can get any closer, there is another time flash. Sawyer exclaims, "Thank you, Lord!" The group reappears in the midst of a torrential storm, to which Sawyer then exclaims, "I take that back!"

The Little Prince

Sean's New Blog #1: A Radical Constructivist Interpretation of Lost

In the words of Paul's Simons song The Boxer, everything is: "...all lies and jest... Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.", and that is precisely what is happening in Lost. The Lost characters interpret the island, Jacob's and MiB's actions in the only ways they can, but everyone's interpretation is different. They see or hear what they want to hear, and disregard all the information which does not quite fit into their picture of how it all works. Locke thought the island was about Fate and Destiny. He interpreted the fact that he had been cured as a sign that he was meant for great things on the Island. Ben interpreted his cancer as a sign that Jacob was displeased with him. To Faraday, the island is about science and rational explanations. We are all doing the same. All of us here. Lost is everything to everyone. However, it's like the will of God, it passeth all understanding.

What I mean by this, is that Lost is a metaphor for reality itself. Not one of us knows what is really out there. We make out own internal version of it in a manner in which we can understand best. But our own version is our reality, and is unlike anyone else's and is certainly not the reality tyhat is out there. In essence this is the theory of Radical Constructivism put forward by von Glaserfeld, claims:

(a) knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject;

(b) the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality.

—Ernst von Glaserfeld, Constructivism in Education. In: T.Husen and T. Neville Postlethwaite (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education. Research and Studies, pp. 162-163. Supplementary Volume 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press. (1989)

In other words, we do NOT just 'perceive a reality', we receive information about an exterior world, and use this to create a 'model of reality'. This process uses active construction techniques, building on what we know, to create a reality we can understand. In addition, the purpose of this is not to construct a model of reality as it actually is, but to create something which makes sense to us. The purpose of the mental model is to become internally self-consistent and meaningful to the modeller, not to become as accurate a representation of the external world as possible. Radical constructivism is called 'radical', because in this theory, everyone's mental model of reality is unique. There are no crossovers, and my understanding and model of reality is totally different to yours. What I am writing here makes perfect sense to me, but you are probably struggling with it greatly; it probably goes against everything that you believe about the way things are. That is just one of the consequences of radical constructivism.

Lostpedia demonstrates admirably that there is no one version of reality. If there were a single reality, then in our mental modelling we would by now, all be converging onto this reality. But we are not. We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest, becuse that is the only thing we can do. Lost is a metaphor for our condition. We are all Lost, we are all trying to make sense of things. When the Losties find out about their world, there will be no great 'reveal' to them, because they will not be able to take it in. It will be too vast, there will be massive culture shock, and the only way they will be able to cope with it is just to shut out the things they cannot understand, and retreat into their mental models of what they can understand.

In terms of the viewers, we too will find, in the great reveal, that it will be too mind-boggling to take in. The ending will be as purposefully incomprehensible as the rest of the series. Reality will be revealed as non-existent, or existing in a completely bizarre, inexplicable form. We will not be meant to comprehend this in its entirety, but we will see how the individual characters have come to understand the Lostverse, each in his own terms. However, each on his or her own cannot provide the whole story, because we , ourselves, each as an observer must construct our understanding of the story. Ultimately it is each of us that constructs the story of Lost, in terms which makes sense to us. And for years after the ending of Season 6 , we will be arguing with each other about what it all means.

Postscript:

As if to underline my points, the following comment was made on a user blog about 30 seconds after I posted the above:

I understand people have different theories but I cannot understand how people still think that MiB could be good and Jacob could be evil. The writers have basically bent over backwards showing us that MiB is evil and Jacob is good yet people are still sceptic. If after this episode you still dont think MiB is evil and Jacob is good than I dont know what to tell you lol.


This precisely illustrates exactly what I am saying. Paul Simon was absolutely right.

    • This is so true. I beleive that our beleifs dictate our experiences - not the other way around. We see it backwards, because we don't understand the power we really have: by changing our beleifs we change our experiences that construct our reality. Isn't it interesting also, that this fact is true about our own eyesight for which we rely so heavily. What we "see" is actually reflected in reverse, our mind interprets this information and puts it right-side up. IT is mind-boggling that we have conditioned our own eyes to not see, so that our interpretation becomes our reality. I beleive this is a universal truth: Beleif causes experience that is very hard for us to grasp, because it puts the power and the responsibility directly on us....man since Adam (more than eve lol) hve not been able to take responsibility and thus we are stuck in reacting to the experiences that we conjured up in the first place.--Annied 05:58, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


Comments on Blog # 1
thread 1
    • This is so illustrated in @Dretzles blog "I can't believe I was right" hence my comment there that those people who want to find scientific answers will, and those that want religious/philosophical/psychological answers to Lost will find those. Like others have said, it's really about balance. I hope to find a balance between the two but who knows if my brain can be objective? I'm a strong believer in Albert Ellis' theory of Rational Emotive Behavior and how it is not reality itself but how we cognitively interpret what is happening to us the affects us. So you may think a plane crash is devastating and has ruined your life and behave accordingly, whereas another person may experience it as a second chance and feel and, more importantly act, grateful.--Destinedjourney 16:44, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • And I might add: some people when unfairly banned from a wiki might see it irrationally, act immature, and leave; others are able to process it in a rational manner, move forward and continue contributing worthwhile posts. Touche--Destinedjourney 16:58, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • I looked up the theory of "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy", and found a statement that "Humans are prone to adopting irrational beliefs and behaviours which stand in the way of their achieving their goals and purposes. Often, these irrational attitudes or philosophies take the form of extreme or dogmatic 'musts', 'shoulds', or 'oughts'; they contrast with rational and flexible desires, wishes, preferencesand wants." I fully recognise how this works. There are 'theories of how the world operates' that are obvious, intuitive and naive, but nonetheless seems to work most of the time. Very often these theories involve anthropomorphisation of forces which are outside our control (weather, fate, luck) etc. We use our understandings of people in transference to explain such things. "Luck has deserted me", "Fate is a fickle mistress" etc. Because we think we know how people operate, and we take our anthropomorphisations as real, we then think we know how the world works. When it doesn't we make statements like: "This can't be happening to me. What have I done to deserve it?" "I cant have got 2 speeding tickets in one day, fate is just not that cruel." "I must win next time. Luck is on my side." In Radical Constructivist terms, people are choosing to ignoring the evidence in front of them, in favour of a paradigm which has worked for them in the past. People get so hooked on these paradigms that they are impossible to shift, even when the evidence against them is totally compelling. In fact the more evidence is piled up, the more intransigent people van become, the more defensive, and the more likely they are to retreat to extreme positions. Thank you for introducing me to a new idea. I will watch out on the blogs for people exhibiting Irrational Emotive Behaviour--Sean Sheep 17:49, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you have learned about ASO'ing: Awfulizing, Should'ing, and Overgeneralizing. And yes, you pronounce ASO'ing with the short "a" sound :) Can't believe I was able to introduce something new to you, you're welcome. Now if I could only learn about QM so easily!--Destinedjourney 18:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • But did you notice that I re-interpreted ASO in my own terms? I bet if we had a face-face conversation about it I would have a load of misconceptions, simply because my assumptions, stance and philosophy are all rooted in my reductionist paradigm, rather than an holistic one, which is probably what you need in your line of work.--Sean Sheep 19:17, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


thread 2
  • This is totally unrelated to the world of Lost, but for some reason your discussion here made me think of this syndrome — the name of which is totally escaping me right now. Anyway, it has been known to develop in people who inhabit for a very long period of time (at least a year, I'm thinking) an enclosed space like an underground bunker in which they have absolutely no connection to the outside world. There are no tvs or windows with which to even catch a glimpse of the outside world, or ways to communicate with people outside of the bunker. The syndrome can develop even if there are other people in the bunker with the individual. The person essentially loses his/her mind. I remember it having to do with the person's sense of reality... ack, if I could only remember the name of the syndrome and look it up on wiki. Supposedly having one or more plants that the person tends to with his/her own hands or even a simulated outside world where they can see a horizon helps to keep the syndrome from developing. For the life of me I can't remember why a plant or horizon keeps the syndrome at bay... Does any of this ring a bell for you? I remember running into this at some point in the past and being fascinated by it. I'm trying to remember if it has anything to do with what you're speaking of here. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:43, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia appears to be down. I will check it out afterwards. I am familiar with the idea of solipsism however. It's the idea that the only person who exists is you. There is a standard joke in which a student asks a professor who is lecturing on solipsism to explain why on earth he (the student) should take any notice of anything the Professor says. --Sean Sheep 19:23, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I discovered that it is not so much Solipsism Syndrome that is related to what you are speaking of here, but the philosophy of Solipsism itself.

The wiki article includes this tidbit, which I found interesting because so many people on lostpedia refer to Occam's Razor when trying to convince another person that that person's theory is wrong

A common misapprehension of Occam's Razor has it that the simpler theory is always the best. In fact, the principle is that the simpler of two theories of equal explanatory power is to be preferred. In other words: additional "entities" can pay their way with enhanced explanatory power. So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation.

Anyway, I think Solipsism is an extreme version of what you're speaking of here. What do you think? — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

    • Didn't find the syndrome LionofDharma is talking about, sounds like solitary confinement or sensory deprivation related, but here is an article I think you'll like. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/reflections/upa/UPApaper.html--Destinedjourney 22:29, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • That link may not work. The article is: "The Brain's Images:Co-Constructing Reality and Self" by Paul Grobstein, Bryn Mawr College, May 2002--Destinedjourney 22:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • The Link didn't work, but I found another copy of the paper. What's intersting about this when you read it, the ideas are incredibly simiar to the idea as 'radical constructivism', but arrived at from an almost literary perspective. There have been many postmodernist writers, such as Jorge Luis Borges who have explored these themes. One of Borges' experiments was in Magical Realism, a genre where "magical elements or illogical scenarios appear in an otherwise realistic or even 'normal' setting." ... spooky; sounds justy like Lost. It incorporates "A narrative technique that blurs the distinction between fantasy and reality. It is characterized by an equal acceptance of the ordinary and the extraordinary. Magic realism fuses (1) lyrical and, at times, fantastic writing with (2) an examination of the character of human existence and (3) an implicit criticism of society, particularly the elite." That very definitely sounds like Lost!--Sean Sheep 22:50, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm going to read all of this stuff tomorrow, because my brain is not in its peak form at the moment. I look forward to it. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:02, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • whatever Borges was (other than the most original and brilliant writer of the last century) he was not a magical realist - "His work erases the biographical, the psychological, and the local. As a result, his stories acquire a philosophical nuance that transforms them into mystic meditations, essays, or allegories that question the nature of reality." García Márquez is the most famous of the magical realists. Entirely a different kettle of fish. If you (dear reader) have not read Borges you can start and finish with Labyrinths. Nothing over about 10 or 12 pages. But each of those 10 or 12 page stories contains a universe. --Charles Kane 09:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, Charles, I grant you, there is some ambiguity in the term 'Magical Realism', and not all authors are agreed on who actually wrote any of this stuff (apart from a load of Spanish guys who were into fantasy), however, where would you put The Book of Imaginary Beings, if not in "Magical Realism'? In any case, I said Borges "experimented" with the idea, not that he was a central figure.--Sean Sheep 09:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I read Imaginary Beings an eon ago. It is, as I remember (I don't have a copy) the creation of an entirely new world, and then it is a partial encyclopedia of that universe. There is nothing "magical" about it. It is Borges "flash sideways" reality or rather a partial Codex of it. --Charles Kane 12:11, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd quite forgotten it. It doesn't feel like "Canon", maybe its an introduction for kids to his nature of reality thesis.--Charles Kane 12:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
thread 3: Simulism, Intelligence & the Omega Point Computer
  • I am a seasoned contributor to the Simulism Wiki, which attempts to explore whether or not the world we see around us is a Simulated Reality. (i.e. as in the Matrix, but for real). There are many arguments as to why this might be the case. The Simulation Argument by the philospher Nick Bostrom is an academic paper which appears to show that it is almost certain that you and I are living in a computer simulation right now. However, if you read this article on time from the Simulism Wiki, it argues that IF we are living in a simulation, AND if time travel is involved, then the simulism MUST necessarily be solipsistic. The reason I am mentioning simulation, is that what appears to be happening in Lost is that the characters are either (a) dead & imagining all this, (b) are having an hallucination, (c) are under some sort of hypnosis (d) are in a computer game scenario, or (e) are in some sort of holographic projection environment, or (f) are in a simulated reality , such as that described by Frank Tipler's Omega Point Theory. Whatever is the case, their reality is 'simulated', rather than real, and if this is the case, the only way that time travel appears possible in these scenarios if every person sits in their own 'solipsistic bubble'.
  • In terms of Occam's razor, you are absolutely correct. Occam's principle only applies to two exactly equal theories. However, when have you ever met an equal pair of theories? I use the following illustration: Prior to Copernicus, people believed the sun, moon, planets all revolved around the earth. Copernicus said no, they all revolve around the sun. These were two competing hypotheses. When asked why the planets appeared to 'loop the loop' around the sky, Copernicus' answer was that with the sun at the centre, earth & planets moved at diffeent speeds around the sun, and when viewed from the earth, the planets appeared to move forwards and backwards relative to each other in different stages of their orbits. The pre-Copernicus' theories laid out precisely and mathematically how the planets should move, but said that the reason that the planets 'looped the loop', was that angels moved them around the fixed firmament of the heavens. Both of the theories were equally good at predicting where the planets would be in a years' time. Occam's razor says that Copernicus' theory is to be preferred, as it rests on fewer assumptions, and does not require a convoluted explanation to make it work.--Sean Sheep 20:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • The idea of us being in a computer simulation right now scares the crap out of me. If that's truly the case, I think there may be a virus in my system... any way to get rid of that? Because I can't deal with this bullshit much longer...

So do you think all of this (and by "this" I mean Lost) is going to end up with something that is scientifically sound? Because I'm skeptical. And I wouldn't really hold it against them either, only because compared to most depictions of scientific principles in mainstream entertainment, Lost is deserving of a Nobel science prize. Also, it would probably sound legit to me because I probably wouldn't know better. In any case, I definitely think I would really enjoy hearing what you had to say afterward. You have a way of explaining pretty complex things in a manner that a layman can get a pretty good grasp of it. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:02, March 25, 2010 (UTC)



  • We are still at the stage where a good scientific explanation (even if it is somewhat 'fringe') can get us out of this hole. The point about all the 'constructivist' interpretation, is that if the writers have been clever, you will get a scientific explanation that satisfies you, and you come away thinking that that was what Lost was all about, the Stephen King geek next door thinks that Lost was all about supernatural entities, the philosophy major is convinced that it's all about destiny v free will, science v. religion, the woman down the street thinks it's about exploring how humans react in challenging circumstances, and how their relationships with one another undergo change over time, and the guy next door thinks its just a good adventure yarn, with a lot of action, some good fights and a bit of sex chucked in for good measure. In other words, it's all things to everyone. They have pulled this off so far. I am amazed at how many times I here "course correcting" thrown around on this site as an explanation. As an idea, it's been swallowed hook, line & sinker by the community. Has anyone any idea how such a thing would work in practice? What exactly is being 'course corrected' and why? No one seemed to stop and ask those questions.
  • My guess is the science behind lost is fairly sound. I think they have a tame physics professor who advises on what they can get away with. However, do not be surprised to find they are invoking some seriously way out idea, even if it is just hinted at. My guess is, we have got a combination of one or more of the following things:
    1. The island was formed by a miniature rotating black hole rotating black hole, and created a Kerr metric which sits at one end of a wormhole with the other end at its antipodean point in Tunisia.
    2. The island is a 'freak' conscious entity known as a 'Boltzmann Brain';, and/or has arisen through Emergence as the culmination of the Strong Gaia Hypothesis, because when the wormhole was formed it ripped through the earth's core, depositing exotic matter directly underneath the island.
    3. If the island, is not in a sense, "real", and is NOT a simulation/dream/hallucination, but nonetheless contains apparently 'magical' elements and the battle between 'good' & 'evil', they can still dig this all with a scientific explanation, by placing the scenario at the 'end of time': the Omega Point. The hypothesis was devised by Teilhard de Chardin, who proposed that that the universe itself is evolving to a stage where, at the end of time, the entire universe is one sentient being. (which in many respects resembes god).Note: The title of the short-story collection Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor (being read by Jacob when Locke is thrown out of the window) is a reference to Teilhard's work.There is a quote from this book:

Remain true to yourself, but move ever upward toward greater consciousness and greater love! At the summit you will find yourselves united with all those who, from every direction, have made the same ascent. For everything that rises must converge.

if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continues to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universes, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could locally exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.

  • I don't know any mainstream TV or Film which has used this idea, however, there are several SF Novels which have used the idea as their premise: in Darwinia, by Robert Charles Wilson, the novel is set in 20C Europe, but an 'event' changes it into a very strange place, full of very odd and unknown plants & animals. The story ends with the realisation that the entire story is a involved in a 'virtual war' ongoing inside the Omega Point metacomputer at the end of time.
... and if none of those is correct, there's a whole bunch of others that are seriously whacky!--Sean Sheep 08:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sean's New Blog #2 : The Last Question: The Ultimate Theory, on Lost, The Universe and... Everthing

Before reading this blog, you will probably need to read (or at least skim through) The Last Question, a short story by Isaac Asimov. I have lived with this story for a very long time, and retold it many times to others. Someone told me this story when I was a student, and I subsequently sought out the story and read it. In replying to a post to my previous blog, I started to explore a few ideas, which have now fused together in my mind. I am becoming convinced that the final secret to Lost, is that Lost is real, but only ONE of many realities. These are being played out in the mind of God, a meta quantum computer which exists at the end of time. This sounds completely and utterly far-fetched, except when you read the story, it all begins to make sense, and many, many things in Lost begin to fall into place. This is the 'final theory'; it is all-encompassing, and breaks open the true nature of who and what we are. The culmination of the story of Lost, if it is true, breaks the 4th wall of the TV screen, and challenges the viewer to question their own reality, and the nature of their very being - literally.

If Lost is being played out in the Mind of God at the end of time, then we are all but phantoms in God's mind. We are all in heaven or in hell, and it's all of our own making.

While this is all sounding totally theological (and it is), for those atheists, who, like me, believe that religion is not just the biggest con ever, but can seriously damage your intellect, all this might seem hard stuff to swallow. However, it is firmly based in rational science; not only that, there is a huge Easter Egg in Lost which has flagged up that this idea should be taken very seriously indeed.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION
The Omega Point Theory

The Omega Point Hypothesis, first put forward by Teilhard de Chardin, proposed that sentient life in the universe is evolving to a point at which the Universe becomes a single sentient being. In other words, the whole point of evolution is that mankind (and all other species wherever in the cosmos) will ultimately unite to be with (or become) God. This is a seriouslty difficult idea to take in, and appears to be on the whacky end of religion. However, hang onto your hat's 'cos this is where the ride now gets bumpy.

Frank Tipler, a cosmologist, in working through the Einstein Field Equations, related to the Big Crunch, concluded that as the universe ultimately heads towards its destruction, the entire universe will be compressed into a single massive singularity. The time dilation effects of General Relativity will mean that to those inside the Event Horizon, there will effectively be an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of energy to play with. The full description of Tipler's notion was spelled out in a book called The Physics of Immortality, but this Wikipedia Article on Tipler's Omega Point gives a good idea of what is involved. This quote from Tipler sums up the idea:

if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continues to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universes, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could locally exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.

David Deutsch, a quantum physicist from Oxford, explores Tipler's version of the Omega Point in his book The Fabric of Reality. This is an extraordinary book, as it runs over a huge number of themes: Quantum Mechanics and the nature of Reality, Counterfactualism and Modal Realism, The Nature of Knowledge, Time, causation & Free Will, The Nature of Personal Identity, and finally, The Possibilities of Time Travel (and if that sounds like an agenda for Lost, then you could well be right). In relation to The Omega Point Hypothesis, Deutsch extrapolates from the rudimentary quantum computers that exist today, to device called a 'Universal Quantum Computer', which is a generalised version of a Universal Turing Machine. Both these devices are 'theoretical' in the sense that they have never been constructed, but are devised in order to explore the physical, logical and theoretical limits to what can be computed. In other works, Deutsch has given a proof of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle which states that such a universal computing device can "simulate every possible physical process". In The Fabric of Reality, Deutsch goes further, and explores whether such a computer could simulate every possible world, where the term "possible world" is used in the sense first proposed by Leibniz, but later appropriated by David Lewis, in his description of Modal Realism. That is a world which is self-consistent and is contradiction-free. In this way Deutsh extends Tipler's notion of 'possible worlds' to include those which are truly counterfactual, but nonetheless possible. Some of these universes may strike us as being somewhat strange, but actually very reminiscent of the ideas to be found on Lostpedia: "... for the multiverse, which is "to a first approximation" a very large number of co-existing and slightly interacting spacetimes, this includes universes in which the cause doesn't occur and its effect doesn't occur." Deutsch concludes that at Tipler's Omega Point, any computational device would have the resources to run an almost infinite number of these 'possible world' simulations.

In summary, then, we have three respected authors who from three distinct fields (Theology, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics), who have hit upon the same notion - at the end of time is an intelligence with almost infinite resources and an infinite amount of time to play with.

Posthumanism, Ancestor-Simulations and the Nature of Reality
Evidence within Lost for This Theory

The Easter Egg is the title of the short-story collection Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor is being read by Jacob when Locke is thrown out of the window. O'Connor subscribed to the idea of the Omega Point, and the title is a reference to Teilhard's idea. There is a quote from this book:

Remain true to yourself, but move ever upward toward greater consciousness and greater love! At the summit you will find yourselves united with all those who, from every direction, have made the same ascent. For everything that rises must converge.

Jacob, who is clearly a 'spiritual being' will not be interested in the Quantum Gravitational details of why they are there, only in continuing the evolutionary process. You could view this as 'Brain Training' for Gods; only his Nintendo DSi is a megamassive Omegapoint quantumcomputer.

Does the use of the Omega Point overlap with any previous 'reveals'

I don't know any mainstream TV or Film which has used the Omega Point idea, so that if Lost were to propose this ias the 'big reveal' it would be ground-breaking for a TV Series. However, there are several SF Novels which have used the idea as their premise: for example, in Darwinia, by Robert Charles Wilson, the novel is set in 20C Europe, but an 'event' changes it into a very strange place, full of very odd and unknown plants & animals. The story ends with the realisation that the entire story is a involved in a 'virtual war' ongoing inside the Omega Point metacomputer at the end of time.

Clearly, if the 'realities' were shown specifically to be simulations running on some computer, then this would immedaitely invite comparisons wiith The Matrix, 13th Floor, Nines, Truman Show, Vanilla Sky, etc. where the idea has now probably become a Discredited Trope. However, if the explanation did not involve computers, simulations etc., and involved multiple realities, quantum mechanics, evolution to godhead and the end of time, with an insistence that the alternatives were real and NOT simulations, then I think this could be pulled off.

How does the Theory Relate to the LostVerse?

To begin with, once you accept the premise that everything is being played out in the Mind of God/A quantum supercomputer at the end of the universe/a re-run of every possible scenario during the Omega Point, then what we are seeing on our TVs is just as real as you or I, here, now. The FS and the OT are just two different realities. It is not that one is not real & the other a replacement; they are both real. It is just what we think of as 'reality' is not what we thought it was. If you think back, the OT was not like our everyday reality. It does not have bizarre coincidences, replications of the same six number repeating over & over. It is possible, but it is not what we experience. The FS is more like our world; it feels 'normal', but when seen together with the OT, it cannot be normal; there is clear 'interference' between the two: they are quantum entangled in an intricate manner.

    • question:So was the Alt/Universe there already? Did what happen on the island- the incident never cause the Alt just created the "Quantum-entaglement? --Annied 05:31, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sean's Communications, Chat & Other Stuff

Opinion requested User:Destinedjourney

Sean, I posted a blog a couple days ago about the Orchid Rabbit #15 experiment by Chang and would like to hear your opinion. I didn't rewatch the episode, I think it was No Place Like Home, but remembered the orientation video showed him discussing the real reason for the orchid station. In the out-take of his time travel experiment, TWO rabbits were created. I don't know why this happened, but couldn't it explain what we are now seeing and avoid all the time fracture/ two timeline theories? When Juliet fell down the swan, she did not explode jughead but instead they experienced a mega force time travel to 2004 FS, while their originals went to 2007 on the island I believe it would explain a lot. The swan hatch would have still been built but destroyed in 2004 by Desmond,or perhaps even earlier because of Jughead laying dormant underneath. Do you think this is possible? Feel free to remove my comments to make room--Destinedjourney 14:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


Response froom Sean

  • It may amaze you to know that although I had heard of this clip, I had never actually seen it. Your blog entry caused me to go looking for it, and I was going to post before I got banned. Yes, I think you are right. It is important, and it is relevant. They have clearly done something here which means that the rabbits cannot be physically in the same timeframe. (There is a similar idea in Timecop. Now, here's an interesting thought. If this is true, and Chang thinks it is, that we should NOT have two entities from different times in close proximity, then how do they know that? Has it happened before, and if it did, what was the result? When did it happen? Was that the event which caused the timeline split? Chang's arm is OK, so this is pre 1977. It could possibly be that the denture through the skull guy wasinvolved with this incident.
  • One more thought: if rabbits cannot be in close proximity to their time-travelling counterparts, then how close did Miles come to himself? Furthermore, Faraday gets shot by his pregant mother.Before she leaves, she reverently closes her son's eyes. Follow the Leader whoops... she is carrying the infant Faraday.--Sean Sheep 14:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe the specialness of people like Miles and Faraday came from their close encounters with their counterparts. I think the time duplicates would explain a lot of the strangeness we are seeing in the flash-sideways. Thanks for your comments.--Destinedjourney 14:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sean Sheep block discussion

The block on User:Sean Sheep has been updated to allow edits on this user talk page by Sean Sheep.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:42, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Response from Sean Sheep

I have moved the post from User:Jabrwocky7 on User talk:LostpediaAdmin to this location, as it is the only place apparently I am allowed to post.

Pictogram reply As I stated before on my talk page, in response to your inquiry about the status of Sean Sheep, the reason for the temp ban was that you discussed centricity of an upcoming episode, penned as if it were theory, but then used the word "hint" in parentheses after the statement. Quote: "When and if a ??spoiler-redacted??-centric episode appears (hint)" (link for Admin). I should also point out that you referred to Sean Sheep in the third person, which I then determined later to be a sockpuppet for Sean Sheep by checking IP logs. I did receive your email, but did not respond directly due to the discussion with sockpuppet account Wolfie Smith. The temporary block on the Sean Sheep account was extended from 7 days to 1 year due to the creation of multiple accounts to avoid the block. If Sean Sheep agrees to accept the temp/warning block and stop creating sockpuppet accounts, I would agree to reducing the ban back to the 7 days, which would expire next Monday.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:37, March 23, 2010 (UTC)


Some clarification, for those who apparently did not read the blog. It was entitled "My hopes for a Richard-Centric Episode". The first line of the blog said: "When and if a Richard-centric episode appears (hint)" , and went on to provide 20 speculations (see above) about what might occur in such an episode. Please note although I did use a "hint", in brackets, I did NOT say which episode I was referring to, and I refute absolutely that I broke any of Lostpedia LP:SP rules.

User:Jabrwocky7 claims that I was discussing the "centricity" of a forthcoming episode. However, you can only discuss the centricity of an episode if you name the episode you are discussing. I clearly do not do that. Furthermore, I would refer anyone to the following text to be found on User:Jabrwocky7's talk page:

== Ab Aeterno Episode ==

Would it be possible to already show in the Trivia section for this episode what the translation for the episode title is? It's not necessarily a spoiler since it's the title, and anyone could look up the translation. It's translation is also relevant to Richard (the episodes centric character), a fact that has already been released by ABC themselves. I don't think it would hurt. You can find the translation here: wiktionary:ab aeterno. --   Atomic Mystro    talk    contribs   04:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the spoiler policy prohibits adding tidbits like that to the episode article prior to the episode airing.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 13:31, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


I understand that this is a discussion, but anyone reading User:Jabrwocky7's talk page would have found out more about the centricity of that particular episode from his talk page, than they would have from my blog. If I were not so insulted by this whole process, I would find the irony quite amusing.


I have one further point to make. Please see below for the block log over the past few days. Even a casual look through of the block log shows that only very rarely are people blocked for posting spoilers, unless they are deliberate, persistent vandals. Placing my "crime" in that list is completely out of place. I have yet to find one incidence of anyone being blocked for discussing centricity, and there is certainly no precedence for a Sysop doing so, on a subjective inference about what an editor might have intended. This entire saga has got completely out of hand, and could have been handled in a sensible manner if a sysop had contacted me to discuss the blog.

Block Log:

  1. 21:17, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked Andyrisi (Talk | contribs) (expires 21:17, June 23, 2010, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Intimidating behavior/harassment: more insults in blog comments)
  2. 18:41, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked Sean Sheep (Talk | contribs) (expires 18:41, March 23, 2011, autoblock disabled) (Posting centricity related spoilers & abusing multiple accounts to get around block. - update to allow talk page edits)
  3. 18:22, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked Lamb Chop (Talk | contribs) (infinite, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts)
  4. 18:22, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked #7585 (expires 18:22, March 24, 2010, cannot edit own talk page) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Lamb Chop". The reason given for Lamb Chop's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts")
  5. 06:16, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked #7572 (expires 06:16, March 24, 2010, cannot edit own talk page) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Oolon Caluphid". The reason given for Oolon Caluphid's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: sockpuppet for temp-banned user Sean Sheep")
  6. 00:40, March 23, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked Oolon Caluphid (Talk | contribs) (infinite, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: sockpuppet for temp-banned user Sean Sheep)
  7. 19:47, March 22, 2010, Jabrwocky7 (Talk | contribs) blocked Wolfie Smith (Talk | contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: sockpuppet for temp-banned user Sean Sheep)
  8. 02:50, March 19, 2010, Robert K S (Talk | contribs) blocked Fuckfuckingfucker (Talk | contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Unacceptable username)
  9. 13:56, March 11, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked Mikey4815 (Talk | contribs) (expires 13:56, April 11, 2010, account creation blocked) (Vandalizing pages)
  10. 23:37, March 8, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked Station7SUCKS (Talk | contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (Unacceptable username)
  11. 23:24, March 8, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked Backimage (Talk | contribs) (expires 23:24, March 8, 2011, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (Spamming links to external sites)
  12. 23:21, March 8, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked Madden8022 (Talk | contribs) (expires 23:21, March 8, 2011, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (Vandalizing pages)
  13. 02:52, March 7, 2010, LostpediaAdmin (Talk | contribs) blocked Jt8845 (Talk | contribs) (expires 02:52, March 7, 2011, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (Intimidating behavior/harassment: Uncivil remark posted to BMetcalf82 blog comments)
  14. 01:16, March 6, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked The Long Con (Talk | contribs) (expires 01:16, March 6, 2011, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalizing pages: spoilers)
  15. 01:12, March 6, 2010, Plkrtn (Talk | contribs) blocked Stylesdiddy (Talk | contribs) (expires 01:12, March 6, 2011, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalizing pages: spoilers)
  16. 20:31, March 5, 2010, Robert K S (Talk | contribs) blocked Loganmac (Talk | contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (Intimidating behavior/harassment: ASCII graffiti of a phallus on Jt8845's talk page)


--Sean Sheep 23:22, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre ban -- Please bring Sean

Wow, this is bizarre. I have been wondering why I haven't seen you, Sean Sheep, adding your usual lively discussion and illuminations to my weak attempts at theories. I just saw this crazy discussion of a ban. I am really bummed out. I don't understand since there has been so much discussion all over this wiki about the episode this week being Richard centric. Even my 11 year old son was commenting on the previews of Richard with the long hair, and he doesn't get on here but is smart enough to know that it will have Richard in it. And like you say, you said "if." They might as well ban us all. This explains why I noticed a heightened level of paranoia with blogs today. Please know that you have a supporter in me and I really hope you will be back SOON - we need you to explain this stuff!!! Even if we don't agree, your knowledge and respect for the show and this wiki has always been evident.--Destinedjourney 23:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your support. I am really frustrated that at such an important episode coming up, I am left powerless. Not only that, I had a real insight driving home in the car tonight that had a lot of bearing on the timefracture theory. I should be revising a lot of the conntent that I posted on Recon/Theories becuse it did not take into account some really important clues.--Sean Sheep 00:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rescind Ban of Sean Sheep ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ban of Sean Sheep is ridiculous.

  • So Glad your back! I really think you have great thoughts about LOST. This whole thing was just sad. Sad enough that I had to show you some suport SEAN SHEEP. Keep up the good work.Igivesaclaire 12:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • well, only in a very limited way, but I will carry on regardless. thanks.--Sean Sheep 12:59, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sean, fyi, I posted this on Jaberwoky this a.m.:o wow, already this morning the first blog I looked at has a pronouncement in comments about the centricity of next week's episode, saying that it will be MIB. I do not get on other sites and avoid spoilers at all costs. Sean Sheep never posted a spoiler, period. There is obviously bad blood here and for some reason he is being singled out. I do not want to name the user who posted the spoiler I saw this morning because I don't believe it occurred to them that there are people on the site, like me, who don't know everything already. My point is that you are not being fair in singling out Sean Sheep. Please step back and get some objectivity re: this.--Destinedjourney 13:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth....--Destinedjourney 13:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Bright Spot in my Day

After the highly emotional experience of Ab Aeternio it is great relief to come here and find something to guide me through the more cerebral part of the Lost journey. Thank you Sean Sheep for your commitment.

I'm not sure how else to help but I can offer to repost any vaguely final theory material in the Ep 9 Theory page. Entirely up to you of course but it would be much more satisfying than removing so called theories from that page and chopping others (I just removed 5, I think - a record). Welcome to use the email I left you if you want to.--Charles Kane 10:39, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Charles, I think for the time being, I'd like to keep stuff here. I intend to copy any relevant material and post it here for commenting. What I don't want to do is to get anyone else banned. I did seriously consider just giving up as Sean Sheep, and creating another identity and working as that user. However, the problem is my style is so distinct that unless I was willing to change what I do, (I am not sure that's possible anyway), I would be spotted a mile off. Interestingly, that was the reason that one of my "sockpuppets" was identified. I am still awaiting an answer as to why my ban for 1 week was extended to ONE YEAR for "sockpuppetry", when there is nothing in the Lostpedia rules (as far as I can see) which forbids this. I have has so many messages of support from colleagues that I have stopped being annoyed; I think people understand that I am no spoiler, and that the ban is completely disproportionate to the offence I am supposed to have committed, let alone what I actually did do. Basically I just want to get on with what I came here to do, not to waste my time arguing and splitting hairs with Sysops who in theory are supposed to be here to ensure that editors like you and I can actually work to improve the site.--Sean Sheep 10:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Why do all wikis seem to attract power-desperate admins?--Chocky 13:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Since somebody already asked me to look at your userpage, first of all, I can't do nothing. I can't change anything. So actually it useless. But I have looked and I read it. I'm sorry that I can change nothing, now you can only sharing your theories here. I've read that you've banned for a year. When Lost is over, it's possible that when you come back no theories aren't needed anymore, but that's my meaning. I can't seeing the future, that would be worse.--Station7 18:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

A useless question, but I want it to ask it. How many names did you used?--Station7 18:39, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • I used three I think. They are all above, banned. When I got the ban I found I couldn't contact any Admin (despite that it says you can contact an Admin on the ban notice), so I created another user User:Wolfie Smith to have a conversation with the Sysop who imposed the ban. That user then got banned for being a sockpuppet of a banned user. (There is, as far as I can see, nothing in the rules of Lostpedia to disallow this). Then I thought. If I can't have a conversation, I will just create a new user and get on with business. Another user notified the Sysop that he thought a "banned user" was editing (if you read the link, the character is from Douglas Adams' HHGTTG, not Dr.Who). I can see why someone might think that this user did this out of vindictiveness or prurience, or to ingratiate himself with the Sysop, but I would never stoop to making such an accusation. However, despite the fact that User:Oolon Caluphid I made a LOT of edits to the Recon/Theories page and cleaned it up considerably, he too was banned. I then created a third user :User:Lamb Chop see above, in which I declared I was a "sock puppet" but not a "sockpuppet", and posted a notice on three Sysops' pages. So far I have only had the reply you see in the top line here. A relaxation of the ban to allow me to write on my own page. --Sean Sheep 19:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I knew there was a Sean Sheep in Wolfie Smith clothing. This stinks, I enjoy reading your theroies and appreciate the work you do to make Lostpedia a better place. I'll be checking your talk page to see your latest thoughts. Hang in there man.--Goose123 20:23, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


Many Thanks from Sean Sheep

I just want to thank everyone who has sent messages of condolence and support, and to say a really big thank you to all those users who have stuck themselves out on a limb and complained to Sysops about my predicament. You have no idea who your friends are until something like this happens. I feel really touched AND reassured by the camaraderie in this community. Thanks to all.--Sean Sheep 20:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ban till 8th April

It appears that you are now banned till 8th April! I don't know if that is good or bad. Its longer than if you'd accepted their offer but shorter than a year! The ban seems to imply a further crime but the description is rather garbled so the vortex is alive and well! --Charles Kane 12:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

You have been tattled on

[click here]. Just an fyi. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   12:42, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but seriously... how old are you. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:15, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a joke. Try not to take things so seriously. And since you asked, I'm a 34 year old woman. Since we're sharing, how old are you? And why do feel the need to be such a judgmental jackass? --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   23:58, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha real funy st least I dont resort to name calling. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:15, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, you're quite mature. I'll be sure to take notes next time. -- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   01:20, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
All i did was simply point out how ridiculous your comment was (which was clearly not a joke). You respond by refering to me as a jack ass. Never did I resort to an attack. Those actions are not becoming of a 34 year old woman. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:22, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was a joke. BUt clearly you think you can profile me since you know me from a hole in the wall. And if you think your little comment here wasn't an attack, then you have no damn manners. Your actions are not becoming of a 25 year old kid. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   01:25, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Its ok I will forgive you for your comments refering to me the way you have, I will move on and I wish you nothing but the best. (Ive got a few years to 25) -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:32, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Just a note, Sean was in effect breaking out of prison, he is editing before his ban was up. He was granted talk page privileges just so his ban could be discussed, not so he could blog and "edit" the wiki. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Was he told that? Doesn't seem like it. If that was not made explicit then yet again the Admins have jumped to conclusions Charles Kane 04:36, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Hey Sean, I just logged on and caught wind that you were banned; haven't trawled through all the details yet but it sounds like the usual wiki-bullshit. Just thought I'd drop a line and let you know you have my support. Chris --FlashMedallion 10:16, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

support

Rtozier 22:39, March 26, 2010 (UTC)this ban thing has hit me over the head like a ship smashing into a statue, especially as I'm British and have thus avoided Lostpedia since Tuesday for fear of Ab Aeterno spoilers. I've read what you "did" and agree with many that the way it was handled was ridiculous. Before I read the spoiler policy I once explicitly revealed the names of most of the next seven episodes after that point, but got away with a warning. Anyway...fight the power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtozier (talkcontribs) .

Free again

Apparently you are re-admitted to the portal. Jeez that was a saga! Hope we'll see you soon as its been rather barren and some of us have only just been hanging in! Charles Kane 07:00, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Remember, you're still on parole, be very careful about what you post. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:31, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Is it true? Great news! --Destinedjourney 14:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I've just spotted you. You will see there will be rejoicing and other excessive behaviors. I suspect you are unbanned because of the considerable support you cause had and that a number of us continued to make appeals on your behalf. The best thing is we might have something to read again! atb Charles Kane 08:49, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

GREAT TO HAVE THE WIZARD BACK!

Thank you for hanging in there Sean Sheep and coming back. I tried to communicate with you but when trying to access your user page, there was no access due to the ban. Perhaps you could read my support of you and DaemonRising on his Goodbye page.

In short, I find your posts and edits the most brilliant and insightful. Since you are only blogging on this page, this will become my new favorite page as there is always great info here, not only about Lost but Physics and other interesting philisophical and metaphysical ideas. Your stellar-job of research benefits us all.

I want to thank you for your contributions, and for staying with the community despite a few very jealous foes. If you haven't already, read DaemonRising's goodbye lostpedia page because there is a ton of support for you on there as well. And thank you also for your respect of other bloggers, you are an all-around class act and you have a huge following and alot of support.--Annied 05:18, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

 ???

I have been away for the weekend, and I come back to find I have been readmitted. Does anywone have the faintest idea what is going on? I also find a rather threatening email from a user telling me that I am on probation, and I should be careful what I post. Has anyone a clue waht is happening, and who releared me from jail?--Sean Sheep 08:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Jabberwock unblocked you. He gave the reason as " parole/second chance". I monitor recent changes and the block log shows up there. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:07, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Thank you for explaining that. However, my unblocking does not actually seem actually to be recorded in the block log. The only place it appears to be recorded is in my user page history, and the reason given is "early parole / second chance". I take it that you must have noticed that my user page had been changed, and read this history, in order to make your very helpful post: "Remember, you're still on parole, be very careful about what you post". I am indebted to you for making it absolutely clear that my posts are being monitored.--Sean Sheep 11:25, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's weird, It shows up here. Right between one of your sock puppets and some dude who posted spoilers. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:36, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message, Sean Sheep. I am going to see what happens here. I will try and follow the wise advice of many that have told me to simply ignore the haters. Anyway, it seems there are other people being abused/trolled in the blogs tonight and nothing aimed at me so far. But it's just such a shame that this even takes place and is directed at anybody... this place never used to be like this.

I am also very glad you were re-instated and allowed back on the site. I love reading your blogs, although I often have nothing to add to them because they are so perfectly articulated. I usually prefer to sit back and admire them, as there often isn't much I could add without repeating you! But know that they are much appreciated and looked forward to, even if I don't always feel able to respond to them!--DaemonRising 00:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Noetic Theory

Just reading about this and didn't want to edit in your sandbox. This reminded me of two things: Jacob's saying that it all only ends once, everything else is progress...I have been thinking along the lines of "ancient memory" or at least I think that's what it's called. Where mankind is able to genetically somehow learn from ancestors by retaining the lessons learned and thereby evolving, i.e. we don't have to start over each generation at the caveman level. It's not just about learning from reading and re-telling the past but actually being born with our ancestors memories added to our brain cells. I've wondered if Jacob is working at this level, trying to provide a school and teach his subjects what he thinks they need to know. Don't know if this makes any sense.

  • The second thing your piece on Noetics made me thing of was fractals. Somewhat related to what I've said above, there does appear to be some design in nature that repeats. --Destinedjourney 15:16, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still grappling with this. As you have read, this has been lurking around evers ince I read The Lost Symbol. I really hope that the producers have not gone hook line & sinker into this, but the 'fractals notion is good. It's to do with the holographic paradigm. Thank's I might include it,.--Sean Sheep 15:38, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have nothing deep to offer as I was too busy giggling about Noetics. Considering where all the main theories are at - it's just as likely a Noetic solution as any other! Very 1970s. Yccch.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   23:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude...I just wanted to let you know that I really respect you, not because of your good posts but the amount of research you put into them and the respect you have for everyone who disagrees with you. I also like how you avoid all the drama on this blog. Thank you...we really need more people like you! --The Egyptian Lost Fan 23:49, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sean, so you've read The Lost Symbol... that surprises me, I've got to say, only because you are a genius and Dan Brown writes some pretty silly stuff, though they are definitely page-turners... after I read I them I feel as if I've gorged on Twinkies. Regardless, how did you like it? --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   23:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

oh, and I haven't read it btw, I'm just curious as to whether you found it an enjoyable read. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:57, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
I won't lie to you. I was disappointed, having paid good money for the book. I read Dan Brown's other books a while back, and thought that Deception Point was the best, as it was the most realistic. I liked Digital Fortress, because I thought the use of computer encryption and decryption was interesting. Angels & Demons was much better than the Da Vinci Code, which I thought was weak, and the codes used in it were pretty lame, and was a poor rehash of the Holy Blood & The Holy Grail which I had read years ago. I found it really difficult to get into The Lost Symbol; I must have read & re-read the opening about 5 times, which seemed to have been lifted directly from Kate Mosse (Labyrinthe) and a whole load of other places. I also think that his use of a POV-style narrative inserts telling the story of a 'maverick' character with a weird view of life is taken directly from early Thomas Harris (e.g. Red Dragon). I always felt that it worked in Thomas Harris, because the novels are about Graham's attempts to profile the killer; the juxtaposition of the profiler & the killer's narratives is what makes those books so compelling. In Dan Brown they are used merely as narrative devices with some gloss over about motivation. The Noetic connection just about finished me off.--Sean Sheep 06:53, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I keep thinking about one of your posts and I thin kI had a break through!!!

Maybe....it was about your post on time and space and how 2 things can't occupy the same time and space at the same time in the same place (sorry that was a little redundant-hope it makes sense) maybe the island is that place that is created to accomodate the extra people/things whatever that get in the way of eachother, not the timelines. those always exist. Does any of this make sense?????

thanks and question re: author I'm reading

Thank you for responding to my S.O.S. I think it will give my daughter something to go on... crazy how QM seems to be surrounding my life as of late. Speaking of that, I started reading a book that she actually checked out of the library to help with her science paper. It is "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. I don't know if I could have read it prior to getting on LP and especially prior to reading your theories. As it is, I'm finding it really interesting (but have to skim over much I don't understand). Are you familiar with this book and the author? I'm really liking how he gives an overall view of many theories and does so in a (mostly) understandable fashion, similar to your explanations here.--Destinedjourney 21:34, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

    • You will do extremely well to get anywhere with this. It is a huge tome. Even as a mathematician, a lot of the mathematics is beyond me, and when I need to understand the stuff I need other books to help me get into it. The physics in the later pages can often be read without the maths, but it is not easy. I have it on my shelf & dip into it from time to time. It encapsulates most of what I have been talking about in various chapters. In terms of your daughter's assignment (I cannot believe 8th graders are talking about quarks. Where is she studying? Starfleet Academy?) , I would suggest looking at chapters 28.6 & 28.7; these discuss the anthropic principle, and the issues of a universe evolving towards sentient life. The chapters on quarks (25.6 , 25.7) are reasonably readable but do not discuss quark mass. However, the latter part of 25.5 discusses the Higgs field, and how it imparts mass to particles (but it is not totally clear) . As you can see, if this theory is correct, then the Higgs field is the underlying mechanism for determining all mass; if this is different then it would affect the masses of quarks (as well as everyithing else). My feeling is that whoever set this assignment wanted the students to think about the anthropic principle, in other words, if the universal conditions were such that they could not support life, then we could not be here to imagine them. The only universes in which someone can ask such questions are those in which the universal constants allow life to form.--Sean Sheep 22:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I am having to skip over the symbols and mathematics and try to read in context. I am jumping around in it too, cherry-picking if you will, and should stop that since I'm tending to only read what reinforces my beliefs rather than try to understand something new. I honestly had no idea that physics, math, QM, the "hard sciences" were so much about answering universal questions of the meaning and reason for our existence. I went the psych/sociology route in school because of my interest in these questions. I find it fascinating to see that these great minds have been trying to apply logic and math to such intangible questions. All this time I've been afraid of hard sciences but see that I've totally misunderstood what they were about. Hope it's not too late to teach on old dog new tricks!
    • Yes, my daughter is in advanced classes, but this is fairly typical in our school systems. Her school is IB accredited (International Baccalaureate) and definitely challenges them. She will get high school credit for her Science/Math/Language classes this year. The high school she will attend next year is also IB and she will start college with a full year of credits there as well (assuming she passes!) It has been good for her but there is some speculation that the kids start to lose some of this advanced learning when it's started too early and that by junior, senior year in high school they are needing to go back over some of the earlier stuff. We'll see. Thanks for all your help.--Destinedjourney 01:16, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

re: thanks for sticking up

no worries dude

The Last Question

Hey SeanSheep, thanks for the link to "The Last Question". Although I didn't read the Multivac page to were it is linked I did go to the library and got out Isaac Asimov's "Nine Tomorrows" in which "The Last Question" is one of the short stories in this book(which I'm sure you already knew). The story is amazing! It is also scary on some level, we as humans have to figure things out on our own sometimes without the help of a computer, which I think is what Asimov is trying to tell us by the answer the Microvac gives "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER". When Zee Prime asked the Universal AC if men died opon the original "star of Man" and it's answer was "A NEW WORLD, AS IN SUCH CASES WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES IN TIME" this brought me right to the world of LOST and your theory. The Cosmic AC gave an answer to Man which said "NO PROBLEM IS INSOLUBLE IN ALL CONCIEVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES" which, in essence is what Jack said to Locke in the FST "Nothing's irreversable". You had said in your post that the LOST writers gave us a big Easter Egg. What were you referring to? Finally, the last answer the AC gave "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" and there was light....... Holy shit that blew my mind!!! Thanks again for the link to the story I really enjoyed it. Namaste--Hurley's Hummer 20:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


  • Whenever I have conversations about whether God exists, I have to keep reminding myself of this story. Voltaire said that if God did not exist ir would be necessary to invent him. This provides the mechanism for such an invention. The thing which blew my mind when I started to think about this in detail was that if the universe is evolving towards a being who can manipulate space an time, then in some sense that being can potentially exist at any point in space and time (because he or she can travel both in space and in time); this implication of this is that such a being exists now and everywhere. That sounds like at least one definition of God I know....--Sean Sheep 20:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • How about the Easter Egg you were referring to? Can you enlighten me a bit or maybe a little hint--Hurley's Hummer 21:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wired article

Hi Sean - I am sorry about the WIRED article, beleive me, I was equally dissapointed. I should have done a better job of warning you, but did not want to give anything away on your blog. I was REALLY depressed last night. Again, not sure what we can and can't say, but I am pretty sure we were both struck by their almost arrogant and defensive tone about what they felt they were obligated to and what they were not. It felt pretty darn convenient what they came up with, and the numbers? well that is just unforgiveable IMO. --Annied 21:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Annied; don't worry. I am old enough to know the score, and while I might set about posturing in the blogs, because I feel pretty much annoyed, in reality I know such things happen. I think I alluded in the blog earlier to the Coen Bros saying at the start of Fargo that it was based on a True story. I really do not hold with such things; Ok you can argue all's fair in art & literature, and it's part of the experience, but the truth is, it lessens viewers' tendency for belief; it anaesthetises their senses, and lessens the liklelihood that they will accept something that actually IS a true story as being true. Similarly with Lost; if someone subsequently tries the same thing again, even if they have an excellent idea, and present mysteries which are spellbinding, but which have coherent and totally rational explanations, then the audience will think twice about becoming involved. We lose something by this, rather than gaining something. To me Lost was potentially a real asset, an Artwork of our times, it was the Dickens or the Shakespeare of the 21st century; however, if Darlton's interview 'reveals' come about, we will be left not with a great work of fiction, but with the worst kind of 'penny dreadful', masquerading as a work of art. That's what saddens me; I really thought we had something, and we may have have nothing.--Sean Sheep 21:30, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Sean, I really bought into all of this stuff hook, line and sinker and felt a little bit like when MiB called Locke a "Sucker", just kind of shocked at how they were blowing it all off (seemingly). The tragedy, in the way you are describing the ultimate experience, is that they were SOOO close to making it real. It wasn't necessarily a huge Quantum leap from the place they left us after season 5 and with the flash sideways, they really could have made a smaller jump and made it work. I mean, if they wanted it to be science - fiction correct, it seems that we were all right there. obviously not totally correct but so close that it could have moved the realm of what mankind sees as potentially beleiveable in the direction of worthwhile discovery - in the real world. --Annied 21:58, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the sad thing for me is that I can actually still see ways (leading out of S5 into S6) in which all of this could have worked out, and provided surprising reveals. However, the one thing that really bugs me is a statement from either D or C (cant remember which), that no-one could have worked out what the island is, or what is happening before Seasons 6, because they did not have all the information. However, they said that from about S6ep3 , viewers would have enough information "to put together a pretty good theory". Now, if that is the case, I cannot see it. I must have read pretty much every theory going about what is happening, and I can give you several reasons why each of them cannot work. I would like to believe that we have all overlooked something, and at the reveal I will go "wow, now why didn't anyone think of that", but I am becoming despondent that at the reveal I will be saying, "OK, we thought of that, but that can't be the answer, because,... " exactly in the same way thet people do not accept that MiB=Christian.--Sean Sheep 22:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Spoilers

For future reference, how do you report spoilers on the blogs? You mentioned that he was reported, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks. Djr7 23:28, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


If you go down to the bottom of the blog.There is a link which says "report a problem with this page"--Sean Sheep 23:31, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks, man. Djr7 23:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall from the last spoiler troll incident, several users used the "report a problem with this page" link, and none of the Lostpedia sysops responded for over 30 hours, and a Wikia admin ended up closing most of the reports. It was only after we left messages on all of the Lostpedia sysops' talk pages that something was finally done. This was in spite of the fact that another Lostpedia sysop later stated that the "report a problem" link was the best way to reach him. --Celebok 01:14, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Reply back from your message

I am surprised, with your intellectual capacity, that you can so astutely point out other peoples paradigm and at the same time not recognize your own. I beleive you will one day see that it is the same thing but with a different set of certainties also known as beleifs. In the meantime, I challenge you to consider your very statement:


"We have to make assumptions in order to live our lives, and we have to use logical processes to 'think through' the consequences of those assumptions. We can do nothing else. That is all we have" Who told you this Sean Sheep? and more importantly why do you beleive it? or why would you accept such a limited view for what YOU CALL "Lesser beings that are inevitably flawed." So assuming you beleive this, how can you "think through" God and have any understanding? How can you even make statement of what is a strong argument for the non-existence of God....It is beyond our understanding all we can do (at first) is beleive in the possibility. But now you have to beleive in possibilities you have no evidence for, a possibility that this thing called God is very different from the limited evidence you have found.

We could go round and round about this forever. Lets try it this way: I think we both assume that us lesser beings at least have free will. (I am making this assumption because if you don't beleive this than you absolutely have to beleive there is a God who is calling all the shots and we are just pons and our fate is determined.)If we have free will then we must have the ability to choose....choose anything and everything - it has to be both or not at all. So with this free will we choose the possibilities out of the entire realm of possibilities that we will beleive. So you my friend are only choosing different beleifs than the Christian. But if they are all possible then they are not wrong choices. In my view, if you are ONLY going to beleif that what you can collect evidence (and of course all this is supporting evidence for YOUR beleif) then how can you ever consider the unproven in your system. To me you will have limited yourself to watching and measuring reflections in the cave and never find out what is causing these from the Light beyond. You will indeed be a lesser being that is inevitably flawed who can only has assumptions that one can "think through".


As far as your argument:

"It is bad enough when such bullying is done to adults, but when it is enacted on children I personally find it an abomination. I just cannot see how any sane person reading the history of Religion could come to any other conclusion." I give you this: Yes, religion can be bad, but there can be Good things you can learn from it. Kind of like Math, I will use your example above. We should teach children about math 2+2=4 even though we KNOW 2+2 does not ALWAYS equal 4. We think this is a good idea because we want to start somewhere. We have to make an assumption that this is the right place to start, and we shouldn't tell them YET that this equation we gave them is sometimes not true because this will confuse them. Sounds like people submiting an argument for teaching kids religion - their religion. Who are we to assume these children cannot understand physics? And by the way, just like religion, Math has been used for very destructive powers.


And for this argument: "I think that the existence of religious organisations, the mayhem and the abominations that they have carried out down the centuries is one of the strongest arguments that you can ever put forward for the non-existence of God."

I could argue this so many ways, but the obvious is: well you yourself said that religion is "man-made" not "God Made" what kind of God would give Man, these incredibly brilliant and creative entities, the ability to choose him by whatever means they want? if they want? in fact the ability to choose and create anything they want? and then take it away and decide FOR THEM what works, what is good/bad or harmful. Perhaps This God even gave us the power to think up the horrible atrocities in order for us to be able to see, we have to see both first. Perhaps this was a decision, a choice that man-made....unfortuneately.--Annied 17:34, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


AND ONE MORE THING...

Based on the primary assumption that you and I have both chosen to make:

"we as human beings do not know the answers" If that then, perhaps it is wise to learn from another entity that might know more than us. Wether that be another human entity like Einstein or a supreme being. Like an animal say a dog or a horse that chooses to learn a new trick from a human and place TRUST in that human in order to learn. Then we might learn or even know something we don't already know. To choose to seek from a being higher than ourselves may be a worthwile thing to do.--Annied 17:56, May 4, 2010 (UTC)



A tentative response:

"We have to make assumptions in order to live our lives, and we have to use logical processes to 'think through' the consequences of those assumptions. We can do nothing else. That is all we have" Who told you this Sean Sheep?

  • I told me this, on the evidence of my senses, and by deduction. All that I know is that I exist, and I appear to inhabit a world in which I am bombarded with sense impressions all day long. My brain fights to make sense of these all the time, but if these sense impressions have any validity whatsoever, (and I allow here the possibility that I could be insane, deluded, being fed erroneous and misleading data by a demon, all that), then I am reconstructing the world I sense via my brain. I do not see the world, I see what my brain has constructed to be a likeness of the world. I do not hear voices; I hear reconstructions of the sense data received in my ears. These reconstructions are what we do all the time. Each of us is alone in a cave of our mind, and we have the sense data coming at us all the time. That is all we know. Our mind is dark, but we see light. Our mind is silent, but we hear noise.
  • What I tell you is all that I know. It could be wrong; I could be misled. What I don't know is how, anyone else in the same position as me could come to any other conclusion. As far as I can see we are, each one of us, alone, trying to make sense of our individual sense impressions. What I fail to understand, given the scenario I have described, how, on the basis of this, anyone could be certain of anything.
  • I do not rule out the existence of god, I do not rule out, if circumstances were to change, the fact that we might obtain certainty. However, in adopting your certainty, you then not only rule out my world, you replace it with something that does not allow you to further question the nature of your being. My view encompasses yours; yours is is a single instance of one of the universes I would allow to be the truth, if truth could be had. For that reason, my view of the world, which denies certainty on a provisional basis, is a more powerful, and a more ennabling view. It allows me to explore the full range of possibilities. That is the reason I adopt it. Not because anyone has told me to, but because in my current state it is the view which allows me the best chance of understanding the world I inhabit.

--Sean Sheep 18:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

The on-going battle - lol!

Hi Sean: I just now read your tentative response above and your sandbox 15. I am not sure how to reply to a sandbox. Do you want my opinion? or do I edit your statement? Don't want to overstep here so thought I would ask first. I had time to read your recent arguments while at my daughters hunter/jumper (equestrian) competition, but lucky for you, did not have enought bandwidth to reply so was forced to ruminate.  :)

I like your tentative response above and I like your sandbox even better. The scientist that realizes that to only consider those things we find "proveable" is limiting the scientific mind substantially. It is way better to beleive in everything existing in an almost chaotic state (chaotic being very subjective of course) then to seek its adherence to our defined system. Hopefully, you begin to see that this is where science becomes just like a religion because it is limiting to you what you will and will not accept (of course it is more intellectual in its exercise, rituals and practices.)

The other thing I think you may be realizing is that when you take the position in an argument such as the one we are engaged in, your position that everything needs to be "proveable" you have then relelegated yourself to the lesser position of having to "prove" that statement. Similar to the beleiver who says there is a God you would probably say prove it. You begin, in taking this "proveable" position, to go down the same slippery slope.

I love your statement above:

However, in adopting your certainty, you then not only rule out my world, you replace it with something that does not allow you to further question the nature of your being. My view encompasses yours; yours is is a single instance of one of the universes I would allow to be the truth, if truth could be had.

This is the very position I was taking in the argument because by you adopting the position of your assumption you then rule out the other possibilities - "my world view" if you will. You and I or whoever are going through the same exercise and doing the same thing. Your assumption does allow for you to consider more possibilities yet consider them not at all. I understand the dynamic you are trying to create. But as long as you try to consider as a human ANYTHING you can only consider it based on a Human's ability to understand. And you can understand from the best human teachers; like the younger Dog does in a pack from the lead dog. But until the dogs trust and learn something new from humans lets say, they may not learn or discover anything new. You are vexed with the paradigm as a human UNTIL you search from a source and entity greater than the human.--Annied 20:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think we can also learn from Dogs too by the way... :)--Annied 20:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Annied

... thanks for the comments in my sandbox.

It seems to me that you are assuming I am arguing from a purely philosophical, rather than a pragmatic position. I cannot remember where I have posted this, but basically I have somewhere argued that I can never be certain of anything other than the fact that I exist, and what is outside of my head is effectively unknowable. I cannot see how anyone can argue that anything else is the case.

This is what I "know"

  • the fact that I can question things tells me I exist.
  • I am bombarded with sense impressions and feelings which appear to tell me I am a brain inside a cranium trying to make sense of these sense impressions. Now either this is correct, in which case the best my brain can do is to make models of the world based on those sense impressions and feelings, or it is incorrect, in which case I have no idea whatsoever is causing the false sense-impressions, and I do not have a clue how to put them together to make any coherent sense of the world.

I have to assume that this is what is happening to other people, too, as my only evidence of the world is my own experience, and my experience of what appear to me to be other beings similar to myself. It is at this point I start to say that the only knowledge that we as human beings can ever possess is what we construct within our own minds; that is all that we can do, and there is nothing else.

This means that if a God were to exist, then we would only come to know her through our sense impressions, our feelings, and the conclusions we derive via logic and rational thought. As I have explained above, this process is flawed, and as such we can never be certain of anything. I therefore cannot see how one can 'make a leap' from sense impressions to being certain of anything, let alone claiming with total conviction that a being exists with infinite power and infinite wisdom, but who cannot be seen, touched or felt, and cannot be experienced by the only contact we have with our outside world, our sense impressions.

I do, on the other hand have a parallel, which I think may be what is happening here. As a mathematician, I constantly use infinity as if it existed, as if it were real. I have no evidence whatsoever that infinity does exist, although I can give a mathematical explanation of infinity: it is the 'end product' of a sequence of numbers which is increasing, and in which a 'potential' infinity reaches its actual limit. This is similar to the idea of transcendence in religion. The difference between the mathematical use of infinity, and claim for the existence of God, is that mathematical infinity is a tool, a device which allows calculations to be carried out, and which ensures a logical consistency to the answers. Mathematicians all understand that there are two sets of maths;one in which we allow infinity to exist, the other in which infinity does not exist. They are different, one is not 'better' than the other, and there is nothing 'in theory' to prefer one over the other. The 'working hypothesis' that infinity exists is useful, but not essential.

--Sean Sheep 22:50, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Mr sheep

I am offended that you were banned. I realize that I have learned much from you. The most important aspect of our discussions is the fundamental problem I have with quantum theory. Can you explain it without equations of pictures. Can it be expressed as ordinary language (as defined by Witgenstein)? It appears that it cannot be. Do not be offended: I am a psycho-therapist MD (lots of degrees, read lots of words). I cannot explain the syndrome any better than a physician from 100 years ago. I treat bronchitis without knowing the microbe: pure empiricism, pure shamanism. The problem with medicine is the same as the problem with quantum physics. IT is the problem that HUME addresses the lack of cause. Cause-and-effect may be a psychological defense mechanism. (CSI is just as much a fantasy as Star Trek). I continue talking about religion because it falls in the same trap for most people. I keep searching for closed systems: Spinoza, Einstein, religion based on a few (compared to most) purely transcendent tenets. With history as my platform for all of these categories. Newton to Maxwell to Einstein (not forgetting the folks inbetween). Religion: constant criticism of texts in light of new findings or details I have missed. You are a believer. I am fundamentally a skeptic. Thank you.--The mortal veil 21:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


Quantum Theory is extremely difficult to explain, even with pictures. Many scientists have expressed the view that if you think you understand what is going on in quantum theory, then you haven't understood what is going on in quantum theory. It is counterintuitive, and it does not accord with real life. This week's New Scientist has an article called "Quantum Weirdness" which offers seven different effects of quantum mechanics which go completely against our expectations.

Quantum theory started out as a result of a few observations and assumptions. At one time, scientists assumed that atoms were like miniature solar systems, that negatively charged electrons orbited a core of neutrons and positively charged protons. People knew that positive was attracted to negative, and tried to explain why the electron didn't just spiral into the centre, and all atoms collapse. The explanation was that an electron could only exist in particular discrete energy levels called "quantum states", and for the electron to spiral into the centre required more energy than the electron possessed. This sounds completely crazy, and the notion that electrons could only exist in discrete amounts was rejected until Einstein explained the 'photoelectric effect' which occurs in solar panels, the fact that a beam of light can produce electricity. The reason that this happens, according to Einstein is that a particle of light (which is itself a quantum object and can have sufficient energy depending upon its wavelength - its colour) hits an electron in its 'orbit' and knocks it out, freeing the electron. These electrons can then flow towards a positive charge creating an electric current. Einstein won the Nobel prize for that explanation.--Sean Sheep 23:06, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Curse the North Atlantic Ocean!

Hey Sean, I took it from things I've read that you live in the UK. I was wondering if you too go into hiding from Lostpedia between the US airing and until you get to watch over here in the UK? I personally watch it before the UK screening but there's also a brief window of time where I can't come on Lostpedia and divulge my ideas!--Youl 22:44, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Normally I do, but this week I risked my one remaining computer to watch. Almost wished I hadn't!--Sean Sheep 20:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

JOpinionated

Hey Sean: I was reading JOpinionated the other day as he does a weekly spoiler-free column on LOST. He was asking for scientists, specifically physicists, botanists, geophysicists, biologists, anthrolopogists etc. who are avid LOST Fans to contact him in regards to contributing/collaborating on an upcoming piece he is doing for LOST. It sounds interesting and I of course thought of you. You can get more information on what he is looking for on his weekly column. Let me know if you decide to do anything with him, as I would love to read it. thx --Annied 00:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Did you get this/ I should have mentioned that his request has been out there for a while. I don't know how important it is to your career to get your work published but he has a relatively large following of readers, might be something worth looking into.--Annied 20:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Annied

I will look this up, and thanks for your interest. By the way, I'd really like to find out more about your work with horses. Is it work, or is it just interest? I say this becuse I have no experience with horses at all, but I have come to understand that cats have intelligence and personalites which are quite remarkable. Once you get past the twee anthropomorphisms, and really get down to what the cats are trying to tell you, it;s fascinating. When you respond they understand that you have understood. I have the notion that they get really frustrated at times when they are trying to communicate and I can't grasp what they are saying. Have you a website or something?--Sean Sheep 20:16, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Still Friends! Of Course

No problem, I know my thoughts and Ideas are out there, from another planet as you say. :) I just don't get alot of opportunity to express these views and LOST and LP have been a great forum for that, but I should know better than to throw stuff around the way I do sometimes.

Regarding Horses: MY FAVORITE SUBJECT. No it is not business but pleasure for me (My daughter takes it way more seriously). My business is: I run a large investment fund along with 3 other male partners and we take on new ideas, start up businesses and provide capital (venture, angel and hedge) for these businesses, sometimes take them public and always provide structure for these new companies in the way of corporate structure, business counsel etc. Depending on what they need we tend to get very involved up front and form the right teams to strategically compete and optimize the companies potential in the markets they penetrate. We take the companies public sometimes but yield high returns for our investors specifically in the areas of Wireless, Banking, Music (just took a record label public)and most of our funds go towards new movie and television productions - we do about 6 productions from our wholly-owned production company.

I have learned alot from Horses and it sounds like you are learning alot from cats. Horses are very intuitive in fact it is probably their #1 sense above smell, sight, sound etc. This is why a herd can be grazing grass and if one horse senses something in the bushes they all take off at once. We have a sortof 'horsewhisper' like trainer and we have learned that by making a picture and thinking the thought - this is the best way for the horse to pick up the cues. speaking to them, or hand leg commands are really secondary. They are such intensly loving and afraid animals, so they sense fear from a mile away. To me, it is like practicing externally the mind/body connection. Unlike Cats and Dogs they don't think through very many things - they react but I agree with you that you can see a Cat or a Dog thinking thru the mission to chase a rabbit or a mouse and strategizing. This is not one of the horses higher faculties so if you can build a partnership between you and the horse and develop trust it is almost like seeing how your brain sends a signal to your limbs. They react by connecting to your thoughts/energy/feelings. It is fun to experiment with this because I can literally think trot and my horse will break to a trot. My daughter and I participate in hunter jumper sports and it is amazing what kind of jump you can get a horse to take if he beleives you that it is what he is supposed to do next. They are big on routine and will do courses of jumps repetitively but it is amazing how you can look at a jump in a sea of jumps and they know exactly which one to go to.

Like you and your cat, I can see from my horse or dog's expression what they are thinking. They are pretty good communicators, don't you think? totally different personalities too. Both of my dogs are so different, and our horses are so different from each other in personality. I couple of them live to show, they love the competition, they love doing the shows and jumping - they are so excited when they rush off the last jump and left all the poles up.

An attorney friend of mine is actually putting together a study on how Genesis had been hi-jacked (for alot of things) to exploit animals for our means. If your primary bias is that animals are here to serve our needs, no matter how much you bond with your dog for example I think it is a very different perspective than enjoying them, watching them, getting to know what they like and dislike....and i think they will give you way more than you could ever ask for if you approach it differently. Dogs are so loyal they will love you regardless. did you see the youtube video where the dog literally flagged down police on the highway to bring them to the burning home where his owner was trapped inside? I think they are capable of amazing things.

On one of our programs, we are doing a new reality show called 'get wrecked' where these people have racing teams to demo new car models. The teams are pretty crazy but one team, the guy's wife is an animal trainer and they have these exotic animals. One of them is a grizzly bear and he works in the garage with the guy. Mostly pushing the cars out of the garage, but it is stunning to see this grizzly bear in action and you can tell the bear loves it.--Annied 22:22, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


Annied: Amazing

I know absolutely nothing about horses, but I can see distinct parallels with my own understandings. I am a lifelong vegetarian as I have already said, but this is basically through coming to understand that animals are not simply 'meat' they are living, sentient beings. You clearly have a kind of mental model that horsdes have some sort of sixth sense. I know that cats do have such senses, literally. They have olefactory senses which I watch them using; they sniff a patch on the fence, and you can see them visibly inhale the scent, and try to 'understand' it. You can also see them using their whiskers as another sense. There is also other stuff. We travel in the car with them most weekends from our main house to our weekend cottage. TC, our black & white moggie yowls uncontrollably if she is in a cat carrier, so one of us has to have her on our knee for the 45min journey. She will knead a blanket for about 40 mins, but as we are approaching towards the hill to go up to the cottage, she stops and starts to look out of the window. She does this whether it is light or dark. She hates anyone coming into the house, and exits out of the catflap immediately. She comes back about 2 mins after they have gone. However, the catflap is in the back door, and people exit through the front. She is too far away to see then leave, but she knows. None of this makes any sense to the scientist in me, but that's the great thing; I'd love ity if there really was something else that we've been missing, that animals have some sort of innate telepathy or were able to tap into some global consciousness, that provided a new uinderstanding.--Sean Sheep 22:36, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


OMG tht is so adorable. Yes one cat hates people coming over and another loves them... I think it would be a great way for you to view a 'global consciousness', I beleive they do have telepathy and I beleive we do to it is just that we have learned to depend on our other senses to such an extreme tht this sense is sort of dorminant or atrophied. We overcompensate by sending information through the same sense - (visual usually) but my Dogs, like your cat they pick up so much with their olfactory. It is said that a dog can understand 94 things about another dog by sniffing that dogs urine. (have no idea how they figured that out). but hey at least with animals, we know they don't have some hidden agenda.

I too an a life long vegetarian in the same way you are - i wear leather :( I am absolutely passionate about animals I always have been and was ridiculed mercilessly by my 5 brothers for this growing up.

So while we ae on the subject, do you mind telling me what you do for a living and/or pleasure?--Annied 02:09, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

title of episode

Hi. Hope you don't mind my eavesdropping but I saw your sandbox and just wanted to mention that you've gotten "Beyond the Sea" somehow stuck in your head, instead of "Across the Sea." Might want to correct that part :)

Thanks, had noticed that. I don't think I'm gonna be posting the blog anyway.

LIT

Unfortunately we've already been subjected to abuse via email from the user including threats of court action. At no point has he acted reasonably in his handling of this. We have, when people have been polite and courteous gone and discussed bans, and reduced them where we feel necessary, but his behaviour since his ban has done nothing but reinforce the reasons we put the ban in place originally. You live and die by your own sword. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:39, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have to trust that you have acted in accord with what you see as correct, and the principles of the Wiki. I of course, have not been privy to the private correspondences, so I take your word for it. However, it occurred to me that you and the other sysops were probably not prepared for the strength of feeling that the end provoked. I notice that you posted on one of my blogs, that I should leave the site, because you felt I had made little useful contribution here. I understand how frustrating it must be for someone who loved the show, to see people (as you might view it), criticising, nit-picking and analyzing the hell out of it, saying that the writers were liars and cheats etc. However, it is because we love(d) the show that we are all here in the first place. These reactions are all genuine reactions to a show which has held our interest for six years. As I said on your user page, I do not agree with what LIT writes; he is hotheaded, passionate and sometimes completely over the top. I hope he learns from all this. I am really sorry to see him go, even with the comments about bestiality (at least he did self-censor parts of that). Thanks for your time--Sean Sheep 09:50, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    You'll note what I said was that if you are going to leave the site, as your writing in your sandbox suggested, then you wouldn't be missed from the project because you only ever blog, and don't write on the wiki. That is hardly a personal attack, its just an observation on the situation at hand. We have seen many people protest and suggest they are going to leave over the years, and some have, some haven't. The project continued without them. That is a vastly different proposition to the things that LIT wrote. Yes, people are passionate about the ending, and I have said for a while we would get a reaction of "Soprano's style" to the ending, knowing in advance that the finale was going to be a character driven event, and not deal with the mysteries of the show at large. That happened, and we fully expected it to be incredibly devisive, but some of the downright abuse that this person has said is completely unacceptable on here. If you want to tear apart the ending in a critical manner, or just want to criticise it because you're upset with the framing of the ending, then fine... But there is no need to tell people to take part in beastial fellatio, self-fellatio, make it clear that if you don't like the finale, you are going to be disruptive, and call for the creators and creatives to kill themselves because you don't like something. That is why LIT has been banned. Once again, its the last I'm talking about this, as there is absolutely no need to justify any further the reasons for his removal. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:59, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nano Nano

Sean: thanks for your help on the nanorobotics. Excepting the Crichton I read the references. I was sorta familiar in a general sort of way with all that. So Smokey is a nanorobotic swarm which is a protective mechanism for the source which is an access to an experiment gone wrong from the future, which uses a crappy stone with glyphs on it to plug things. I can live with that, tho it is nearly as unsatisfying as what DL and CC did, but then who is MiB/Flocke?

BTW - reading that stuff above about the banning - that editor was beyond the pale. Whatever good stuff he may have had going on was completely negated by the sheer nastiness unpleasantness and abusiveness of his comments. I'm pretty accepting, but I just don't need to have that stuff shoved at me. No amount of excuses and enjoyment of his "humor" will change my view that he is antisocial and probably is now or will soon need help. I feel for his pain.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:38, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


more nano stuff

Ok, let me see if I can manufacture this on the hoof.

The nanobots start out simply as as a protective vessel to contain the experiment. They control it and contain it, and live off the energy within the field. They have distributed intelligence, and they are self-replicating, so that they if individuals die off, others in the swarm can be delegated to create more. Effectively this is an 'intelligent colony'. The people from the future can communicate with the swarm. (You might regard this as telepathic, but effectively the swarm could simply read brain function) The swarm could communicate back in other ways - it could be that a function could be for a part of the swarm to mimic a human being, to talk face to face. In other words, we have an entity which looks and feels and behaves like a smoke monster...

When the source 'dies away' all the energy goes, and the swarm dissipates. When the source is plugged, and the light comes back on, the swarm revives. Now, what happens when Jacob shoves his brother down there: dunno, but there are all sorts of possibilities: it protected the source, killing the brother; It read his mind, saw what he was trying to do and ran off to protect the other parts of the island. It had been down there for so long it went mad... no idea. I am just trying to come up withy a mechanism here and see how it fits. The swarm has to come with the source, doesn't it, and the source has to be part and parcel of the pregnancy thing. They must be interconnected for it all to work.

  • The swarm is dependent on the source but not vice versa. Why would the swarm care about pregnancies but not babies. If the swarm explains Smokey it still doesn't explain the human MiB or his desire to leave the Island (unless he is sick of his bondage to the swarm), why would Smokey pick and choose his victims, and what possible use would it be to do the Christian rattle (Kate giggles). Lots of holes to fill here - I'm still worried about the glyphy plug, and need an explanation of what the hell is wrong with Desmond that he can resist the electromagnetism and where his future read comes from.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:01, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


Ok try this:

when the MiB entered the swam, the swarm engulfed MiB and effectively became him. (remember it can mimic any human being and can read minds). This engulfing process killed him. However, he does not have to take on MiB form he can still act as smokey, and if he wants to, act as Christian. He can also appear as Walt, or any damned thing he chooses. He can fly over water, but he can't leave the island, because he needs it for his power source. How he thinks he can leave, I have no idea.

Desmond. OK The Swan Hatch and the button-pressing exposed him to the source, and he gained immunity, although how you gain immunity from radiation I have no idea.

Reading the future. The source is NOT EM energy, that's just its manifestation, i.e there is a whole heap of stuff that radiates, amongst other things, and EM field. . The source consists of tachyon particles in some measure (you need these to create a wormhole, and coincidentally you can use them to travel faster-than light). Exposing someone to this stuff could cause the em field in the brain to absorb tachyon particles instead of normal photons & electrons; when these are used as brain function, effectively they can not only remember past events (which is like connecting with their past brain), they can remember future events. However, because the future has not yet been mapped out, these are only possible multiversal futures. Why he could actually change the past, god knows. We need a separate project on time travel.--Sean Sheep 14:44, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Cuneiform

That is interesting. Basically Cuneiform is base 360 arithmetic. Remember the arguments about Ziggurats? Also, there is a tradition that the Sumerains came from somewhere, and no one knows where they came from...

The Sumerian civilization became known to the modern world as a result of references to Sumer in writings found through the investigation of the ruins of Babylon and related cities. These Babylonian references were to a civilization that was ancient even in Babylonian times.

The story of Sumer is like the plot to a science fiction story. The modern world learns of its existence through references in an ancient literature to a still more ancient times. The Sumerian appeared at the dawn of history as a fully developed society with a technology and organization that was different and superior to the other societies of the time. And civilization itself seems to have stemmed from this alien and mysterious people. Communists proposed what they claimed was a new and progressive structure of society but what they seemed to be trying to create was basically the same sort of society that the Sumerians created with a priesthood controlling the society and its economy five thousand years ago.

now how about that....

  • I've put the best screenie up that I can make. The_End#Trivia You will need to pop it out. Two symbols right in the middle. You can see more but not in the stills. Maybe someone has a HiRes copy. Mine was just XVid    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • when I was at school your above quote might have held good. The oldest dating of civilizations was at about 2000BC. But we have advanced a bit. For starters The 5000BC thing even stretching out to 6 and 7000BC for organised city states or at least large aggregations of people. All anxiously inventing boats to take them to a legendary island where huge white monsters roamed through smokey jungles. (Lost still manages to surprise)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:48, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Science to the Masses!

Sean, I would like to thank you for your countless blogs about subjects far out of the range of my knowledge. I feel I got a mini scientific crash course from you. I first joined this site around the time of your now infamous banning. It was then that you were brought to my attention. I was so amazed by everything I read. My mind told me to listen to this guy, he actually has some facts to back up his hare-brained schemes! I have so enjoyed Lostpedia, and enjoyed you! It is because of you, I can't listen to "The Boxer" the same. (Paul Simon is a Poet!) Funniest of all, my 2 1/2 favorite t.v. show is "Sean the Sheep," so whenever I read your name, a theme song plays in my head. So, thank you Sean, for enlightening the last few months, its been a pleasure!HorribleEyes 19:41, May 27, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 19:41, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Thank you for your support of my idea in Talk:Timeline:Flash-sideways timeline. With a little luck we'll solve this mess soon. Jdray 02:07, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Last Blog

I see you left this on your talk page and not posted as a blog. You probably did this because it's not something up for discussion. I would hope you did it because you are still contemplating contributing on LP. If you are not, I would try to talk you out of it for purely selfish reasons. Your thoughts and insightful discussions have been something I've looked forward to since I started coming to LP. I don't always understand you, I don't always agree with you, but I do always feel challenged to learn by your contributions and for that I'm very grateful. I just got "The Philosopher's Stone" and now that Lost is over and my time on here will be tapering off also, it gives me something to look forward to. Perhaps you will be checking back on here from time to time and I can let you know what I think about it? I'm really happy to have had your patience in explaining things that I had never even heard of. Some people do make a difference, and you are one of those people.--Destinedjourney 16:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

COLLABORATE

Ok sean, you are right, no reason to repair lost... HOWEVER, let me tell you this because I know you tune into this. While I'm very scientific in my outlook (studies logic, work as a software engineer) I also like fortean research. Lots of shows play with the weird in a fun way (eerie indiana ftw!) and Lost actually, for all it's cop out in the last 3 seasons, actually pulled a lot of traditional weird things together pretty closely.

I have no idea why they didn't connect them, they were all pretty close. Maybe abrams would have...

Anyway, just because lost will not hold the energy needed doesn't mean we should waste these idea. Even prior to lost I have had my own Lost Island (bermuda triangle) that draws castaways mysteriously. Lets create such an island where EVERY oddity has an explanation. This could be an open source world. We start with what we thought would fit, we use some of the elements and not others.

If you see my season six idea I would even allow the whisperer's as those waiting to move on. The value of Lost is to give us a starting point, as I'm sure you have lots of ideas as do I which are divergent. But I would like to finish this island they started... somehow.

Contact me here as Harcourt or pyrrho314. As I probably won't be here much, you can try pyrrho314 at youtube.com as well. The Pyrrho314 account will probably be coming to wikia as I've started a philosophy wiki (reflectopedia.wikia.com).

If you are interested, tell me, we can start a wikia wiki. Btw, I think a lot of lost things are about living in Hawaii...

new message

Gosh darn it, now you've gone and done it Sean Sheep! Your reply to BalkofFame's link got me stirred up and I posted on his blog after I thought I was finally done with LP. I would love to hear what you think. I know you don't want to give the writer's any credit, and I concede that they totally wimped out with the FS storyline, but could it be possible they did have a message that people aren't getting? The link @BofF gave and that guy's take on Lost, while given as a critique actually could just as well have been Darlton's explanation. He basically ended up explaining Lost and giving support to the message that irrationality needs to be questioned, not taken on blind faith. While it appeared mythology won over rationality, that doesn't necessarily mean Lost supported that decision. Oh well, I said I would let go....--Destinedjourney 15:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Me too, I had left. Or so I thought. I have so far resisted writing on blogs, but this just seemed to me just like a call to arms. I do not think that the writers intended there to be a huge debate about what I would call a 'copout ending', or if they did, it backfired spectacularly. In a blog I posted just before I decided to leave, I discussed endings of things which completely go against the grain, in order to incite viewers and readers to wrath against the system, or injustices against individuals. I don't thinkthis happened in this case. If you look back you will find in the Locke v. Jack button-pressing standoff in "Orientation", you will see Jack cave in. I never believed that would happen. I thought Jack would say "what the hell", and press the button without a second's thought, just to get on with the real stuff, OR stand his ground, and NOT press the button at all. All of this was Jack's journey from MoS to MoF; button pressing was a first step along the way. There was a blog just after the show ended which asked "What exactly was the message that Lost was trying to tell us?" I am still not clear what that message was supposed to be. It wasn't that 'faith in stuff is great', because no-one comes up smelling of roses, whether they are a mystic or a scientist. However, no-one in the series asked any sensible , rational questions of anyone who might have known the answer.

  • Miles: "Hey, Chang, dad, you know when you said the fence is to keep out the 'wildlife'? Well, you meant, right, the smoke monster, didn't you? What is this monster, and how exactly does a sonic fence keep it out?"
  • Juliet: "Jack, you know this idea of exploding this bomb, well, I've been thinking. The one thing that could have prevented the women from carrying to term was that they could have been radiation damaged. I think we might be simply repeating history here"
  • Hurley: "Hey, Jacob, dude. Nice to see you. You know I've been thinking. In the lighthouse there were all these names and numbers, all crossed off, except like...my numbers, you know the lottery & stuff. Was that you? I mean, did you fix the lottery so I could win? How can you do that? What about all the bad stuff, like the meteor, was that you too? "

You see, these "mysteries" remained mysteries because no one demanded any sensible explanations from people who could have provided them. If this is deliberate on the part of the writers, then I believe it is only because they had no answers, rather than they wanted to portray a group of people who were anti-rationalistic. In any case, their anti-rationalism gets them to heaven, so what does that say about anything?

As a parting shot... think on this:

  • Sayid = Muslim; killer in life and afterlife. Q'uran says go to hell, do not pass go, do not collect angel wings.
  • Shannon= non-muslim therefore doomed; Go to hell, do not... etc.

(actually Sayid believes that when he dies he will stay in the ground until the Day of Judgement, and specifically not be resurrected until ALL of history has passed. Additionally he would simply NOT be comfortable with the notion of that church, which had lots of iconography, which is against the Muslim faith. The writers have not really considered this; simply chucking in a Muslim symbol on a stained glass does not address the issues about the contradicting bleief systems of the various faiths )

--Sean Sheep 16:08, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

  • Their anti-rationalism got them to heaven perhaps, all we know is it got them together to move on. What viewers read in to that is up to them. I see it as they had a need to be together. Your example of Sayid and Shannon is exactly what was my first falling out with religion was about. When I was 7 and attending catholic elementary, the nuns told me how sad it was that my mother (who was methodist), wouldn't be in heaven with me when I died. Talk about abusing children! But again, I don't know that the writers of Lost were condoning these messages. I think maybe they were pointing out the inconsistencies in belief systems, saying that there are more than one right answer, and also simply moving on themselves because they didn't have the answers and were using a lot of smoke and mirrors like any good magician, divert attention and then pull the rabbit out of the hat!
    • On an aside, I am a little more than half-way through The Philosopher's Stone" and am very much enjoying it. Lots of brain food. I thought it was so curious that he described relational consciousness as web-like. Having written this in 1969, before the world wide WEB was coined. Man's ability to grasp copious amounts of information in a cumulative way, and seeing it from the bird's eye view instead of staying embedded in a narrowly focused, subjective view, is the challenge of this century I believe. I am just to the point where he is discussing the idea of primordial consciousness or memories. Made me think of Lost. And then there was this: "Life has not only established a foothold in physical bodies;it has a second line of defence...This second line of defence would vanish completely if all living creatures were destroyed, for it might be thought of as a sort of magnetic field emanating from living creatures. This is the 'realm of ghosts.' " Ironic! In the forward by Joyce Carol Oates she mentions John Fowles. I read "The Magus" in my early 20's, so long ago that I don't remember it except that I loved it. I had no idea that I was reading anything resembling sci-fi. Guess I just didn't understand that sci-fi can encompass philophical ideas. I may go back and re-read it after I finish this. My sister also recommended "The Sparrow" by Maria Doria Russell. So I really should keep off LP and get to reading more.--Destinedjourney 16:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
So glad you are enjoying The Philosophers' Stone. I thought the book was really good, and was one of the first books I kind of 'believed' becuse I wanted it to be true. This notion that we can create ghosts, as a kind of shared experience, and a shared reality was what I hoped would be the explanation in Lost. I also was looking out for this being the explanation behind the FST, which, in fact it did turn out to be, but in a different way. I also had a brush with religious thinking at an early stage which affected my attitudes I think. At school we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every morning. I always wondered why we had to say "in earth as it is in heaven" (we were apparently using the KJ version of the Bible). I asked the teacher this and I was told "that's how it is". A few weeks later, coincidentally, I picked up a book in a bookshop (6 years old, what does that say?), in which the Lord's Prayer had "on earth as it is in heaven". The next day I went and argued with the teacher, who just would not have it that the phrase "in earth" does not make sense. I said (at the age of 6) that if this was the case, I wasn't going to say the Lords Prayer any more, because what I am being asked to say does not make sense. There was a huge fuss. My parents were called in; I was an enfant horribilis, and in the end I was told that I must say the Lords Prayer, otherwise I would go to hell. I still thought I was right, and said the Lords Prayer, but my way. (Later on in life, I understood that "in" and "on" are the same word in Latin ("in"), and the latin translator had simply used what he thought was the appropriate one of these for his time, but clearly neither my paprents nor the teacher understood any of this; they were simply following what they had been toold, and you do not question what you are told in religion".--Sean Sheep 17:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I understand

I can understand why you left. I have seen PLKRTN's remarks to you and am currently in contact with LIT. He sends his best and would like you to know that he considers PLKRTN's remarks way our of line.--THE SOURCE 03:32, June 5, 2010 (UTC)--THE SOURCE 03:32, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thse Admins and Sysops are not very bright!

The Source will be all over this site, guaranteed. PLKRTN likes to wear prety little pink dresses and be spanked on the bottom and be caled Sally by Czygn!!! Hahahahaha!!! --Howabouthat 20:05, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

You rock

You Are Rather Awesome.

The Science of Lost: Perspectives in Physics, Chemistry, and Culture by Pearson Moore

Thought of you after reading this. --- Balk Of Fametalk 10:22, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.