Another Lost theory: Novikov self-consistency principle
Share
The idea behind Novikov’s self-consistency principle is that time is self-consistent, meaning if you traveled back in time it would be to the same three dimensional brane that you left instead of creating a “new timeline” in history. In other words, you could travel back in time but physics would not allow you to change anything that would create a paradox. For example, if you went back in time and decided to shoot your own grandfather before he met your grandmother, the gun would jam or the bullet would miss or the guy would turn out to not be your real grandfather. No matter what you did the probability of succeeding would be 0. The principle suggests that it is impossible to create a paradox by going back in time.
My new theory is that LOST borrowed this idea. Michael shooting himself would have prevented him from setting in motion an action that will affect the past. Therefore Michael is essentially immortal since dieing would create a paradox.
More things to think about:
According to my theory, Desmond is immortal between 1996 and the time he had his time travel episodes. So if he had tried to shoot himself in the year 2000, he would be unable to. This is because in the year 2000, he has not yet had the time travel episode which caused him to learn Penny’s phone number. If he died in 2000 he would not be able to do the time travel and therefore would not know something that he already knows presenting a paradox. This would make the probability of Desmond dieing in the hatch explosion 0% since it would stop him from doing something he already did. See how it works?
Also this theory can potentially explain pregnancy issues. If the birth of the babies would somehow prevent something from happening in the future which has already affected the past… The mothers and or babies would have to die as it would create an issue in causality.
Locke could have done something in the future to trigger the arrival of his own father on the Island in the past so he could effectively kill his father. That means that in between the time Locke’s father arrives and when Locke does the thing that brings him to the Island, Lock would not be able to die and create a paradox. Evidence that this could be the case is when Ben shoots Locke but Locke survives since his kidney was removed. Ben would have had a 0% chance of killing Locke or preventing him from bringing his dad to the island. Could Ben understand how this all works and shoot Locke to test if Locke was invincible?
cick here to read the rest.
