Whttagwwp

[mattyboyUK]

What happened to the acronym glossary we were promised? :)

[krakup]

What happened to the acronym glossary we were promised? :)

i swear i get more confused trying keep track of all the theories than i do watching the show lol

[bunnydixon]

want want want......*tsk*

[mattyboyUK]

want want want......*tsk*

Yeah. that's me, So demanding :D

i swear i get more confused trying keep track of all the theories than i do watching the show lol

without a doubt, the theories just serve to confuse me more.

[Dzbabykel]

What is this acronym glossery you speak of?? :confused: Intrigued! :D

[mattyboyUK]

What is this acronym glossery you speak of?? :confused: Intrigued! :D

I started a thread a while back asking for the acronyms that everyone use's to be given a glossary, eg TPTB = The powers that be, there was some debate about it and Lisa ( YES YOU :D ) promised us one, but typically for here no one could agree on anything solid so I think its been brushed under the carpet :)

[Dzbabykel]

I started a thread a while back asking for the acronyms that everyone use's to be given a glossary, eg TPTB = The powers that be, there was some debate about it and Lisa ( YES YOU :D ) promised us one, but typically for here no one could agree on anything solid so I think its been brushed under the carpet :)

Ohh that is helpful, I'm kinda slow when it comes to all those words :p

[mattyboyUK]

Ohh that is helpful, I'm kinda slow when it comes to all those words :p

Well, yeah it would be helpful if we could agree and Lisa ( YES YOU AGAIN :D ) actually put one up. :D

I do think its a good idea, what with all the new members we are going to be getting when the new season starts.

[danielle]

I seem to recall that it derailed because no-one could seem to agree on definitions. Some people's definitions of WHH or WHAH were the same as other people's definitions of TCC. :eek:

[chester]

I seem to recall that it derailed because no-one could seem to agree on definitions. Some people's definitions of WHH or WHAH were the same as other people's definitions of TCC. :eek:

Hang on, we need a glossary to be able to understand that. :D

[LissaMarie]

Listen you sassy Englishman! Lets not even go there, Mooney! :p

I promised no such thing. All I said was that I would "stick it" to the top of the section. You jokers were the ones who were supposed to be re-hashing the details and reaching a consensus.

[mattyboyUK]

I seem to recall that it derailed because no-one could seem to agree on definitions. Some people's definitions of WHH or WHAH were the same as other people's definitions of TCC. :eek:

Yeah, that's the reason,

would you mind explaining that comment?!? :D

[mattyboyUK]

Listen you sassy Englishman! Lets not even go there, Mooney! :p

I promised no such thing. All I said was that I would "stick it" to the top of the section. You jokers were the ones who were supposed to be re-hashing the details and reaching a consensus.

Ha all true, but I gotta moan at someone :p

[LissaMarie]

So get back to work, people! I'll stick it. :D

[mattyboyUK]

TPTB = The powers that be

that's the only one I'm sure of.

[Unbridled Pageantry]

STTWH====Spact Time Turtle Wormholes

[mahalo_dude]

ILTBS = I Love The Boobie Station:D

[stream]

Dude that is not what needs explained!!! no wonder nutin gets done
WHH
what happened happened, you can't fix it

[chester]

Pffft = someone else can do it. :D

[rachelskid]

to be fair, Lissa was nominated against her will. And, also, chester and I are the ones who derailed the definitions when we got to WHH, WHAH (which by the way has two meanings now) and TCC. we never even got to multiverse, or alt univ. it was a good effort though.

[ortrules]

to be fair, Lissa was nominated against her will. And, also, chester and I are the ones who derailed the definitions when we got to WHH, WHAH (which by the way has two meanings now) and TCC. we never even got to multiverse, or alt univ. it was a good effort though.

Yea, so grab your torches and pitchforks and go after rachelskid and chester everyone!!!

[stream]

well then where did it go Rach? someone go fetch it and we can fix it up,:)(or mess it up as is usually the case)

[chester]

I like these definitions from the Heroes wiki discussion on possible rules of time-travel, it most closely resembles the way I interpret most discussions that go on about WHH and TCC, anyway. But I stand to be corrected:

WHH: Whatever happened, happened.

Fixed Time Theory: mostly what is being referred to when people talk of WHH. In line with Faraday's early assessment of 'the rules' of time travel in LOST.

In a universe with a single timeline, all events that occur at every point in history (past, present and future) must not only be self-consistent, but immutable. A time traveler moving in the past is simply acting out a role; they cannot change anything that would alter the chain of events that eventually lead to their decision to go back in time. Every action that occurs was predestined to occur.

.................................................. .......................................

TCC: Things Can Change

Non-WHH theories (as defined above) referred to on this site mainly as TCC, but other places known as Alt (for alternate) or AR (for alternate reality), can be broadly separated into these two main theories:

Multiple Universe Theory

The Multiple Universe theory allows that every probable outcome of any event spawns a new universe with its own timeline, and that a time traveler simply moves up and down the timelines, taking different branches along the way. A time traveler moves from the present back in time to undo a great injustice. They succeed and return to the present, however, are they really returning to "their" present?

Multiverser Theory

Contrary to the Fixed Time Theory, and the Multiple Universe Theory, the Multiverser theory states that the universe's timeline acts more like a record head on a VCR; jumping forward in time allows all events in the universe to play out as if the traveler were not there, and jumping backwards "overwrites" any events that occurred in between. The theory allows for free will in every timeline, and multiple timeline rewrites are allowed to occur, but all events in every timeline adjustment must be causally self-consistent or a "time loop" will occur.

[ortrules]

I can agree with those definitions.

However, I think the terms Multiple Universe Theory and Multiverser Theory sound too similar. We should come up with a better name for the multiverser theory.

[chester]

I can agree with those definitions.

However, I think the terms Multiple Universe Theory and Multiverser Theory sound too similar. We should come up with a better name for the multiverser theory.

I totally agree. :eek::p:D

[chester]

I like 'Updateable Universe Theory'.

[ortrules]

I totally agree. :eek::p:D

Multiverser universe should be something like "Flexible Time" or "Flexible History".

[ortrules]

I like 'Updateable Universe Theory'.

That works for me.

[rachelskid]

ok, get your pitchforks ready:

i am uncertain the the definition Chessie put up for WHH, is fair and complete.

so, i found this particular explanation from a dude off another forum pretty good. i am totally stealing it and i do not feel bad because that forum is a little FULL OF IT since they ignore me completely as a noob. anyway, may i present WHATEVER HAPPENED ALREADY HAPPENED:

"It might be easiest to understand WHH time travel by looking at what it isn't. Consider the type of time travel seen in Back to the Future. The key thing to note is that, when Marty went back to 1955, he had never been there before. There had been a version of 1955 without Marty. So the presence of Marty in 1955 created retroactive changes. This was made clear when Marty said "My dad never stood up to Biff in his life." Thanks to Marty being in 1955 - something which hadn't been true originally - George did stand up to Biff and, in fact, punched him out. When Marty returned to 1985, it was different than the 1985 he left - his family was wealthier and happier. This is because, if a time traveller can make retroactive changes, the future he left will be changed by whatever he did in the past. This creates - or has enormous potential to create - temporal paradoxes, but in my opinion this does not matter. Time travel is science fiction anyway, so who the hell says it can't include temporal paradoxes? The BTTF approach is a perfectly valid one that 's been used in a lot of popular entertainment, so it would have been a perfectly valid artistic choice for the creators of LOST to have made - in theory.

With me so far? Okay, that's not how time travel works on LOST.

WHH (aka Novikov's) simply says that you can't create temporal paradoxes and you can't make retroactive changes in the past. Now obviously the presence of a time traveller in the past is going to change things - he doesn't belong there! WHH simply means one thing: the future that the time traveller came from was already affected by his presence in the past, even before he time travelled from his personal perspective. Contrast this with the BTTF model. Before Marty time travelled, he lived in a 1985 that didn't include him in 1955. After Marty time travelled, he returned to a 1985 that did include him in 1955, and was different as a result. Marty made retroactive changes in the past. That's not how it works on LOST. The time traveller can change the past and has 100% free will to do so. But those changes aren't retroactive; they already exist in the future he came from. That means the time traveller can change the past - in fact, almost certainly will change the past just by being there - but he can't change the future because the future already has been changed. Whatever the time traveller changed in the past is already reflected in the future he came from. In effect, he made that future. He is, to paraphrase the room 23 video, the cause of his own suffering.

[chester]

Uh oh .

[rachelskid]

Uh oh .

roflmao!!:D:D

[ortrules]

WHH (aka Novikov's) simply says that you can't create temporal paradoxes and you can't make retroactive changes in the past. Now obviously the presence of a time traveller in the past is going to change things - he doesn't belong there! WHH simply means one thing: the future that the time traveller came from was already affected by his presence in the past, even before he time travelled from his personal perspective. Contrast this with the BTTF model. Before Marty time travelled, he lived in a 1985 that didn't include him in 1955. After Marty time travelled, he returned to a 1985 that did include him in 1955, and was different as a result. Marty made retroactive changes in the past. That's not how it works on LOST. The time traveller can change the past and has 100% free will to do so. But those changes aren't retroactive; they already exist in the future he came from. That means the time traveller can change the past - in fact, almost certainly will change the past just by being there - but he can't change the future because the future already has been changed. Whatever the time traveller changed in the past is already reflected in the future he came from. In effect, he made that future. He is, to paraphrase the room 23 video, the cause of his own suffering.

This is just incorrect. If the future has "already been changed" - then that's clearly a change - which is why it uses the word change.

[chester]

Yeah Skidzy, I'm sorry, but I find that kind of assessment, ie, free-will but no-changes, to be a fallacy. Based on a word that really means nothing in the context it is used; 'retroactive' changes. Either there is a change, or there is not. "Retroactive' loses all meaningful content once time-travel is involved. Going back in time and changing things, is the very definition of 'retroactive'.

Either it only happened one way, or it happened more than one way. If the former, then it belongs in the above WHH category, if the latter, then it belongs somewhere outside it, ie, TCC. In my opinion. :)

[rachelskid]

This is just incorrect. If the future has "already been changed" - then that's clearly a change - which is why it uses the word change.

i believe what he is saying is that "the future" - aka seasons 1-4, is already a refection of the losties presence in 1977 and the free will the exerted. this guy was answering a question and using the word change to stress and make a point. there is no retroactive change.