Originally Posted by Mordred

I'm not totally sure that's what they're going for although they seem to be insinuating it.

Of course the whole Shrodinger Cat thing is used to explain Quantum states, and specifically DOESN'T scale to actual Cats (i.e. in real life the Cat is either alive or dead, not both, but a quantum particle specifically is in multiple states/universes until observed [at least in current quantum theory]). The person in the tree cannot be Penny and the other girl. It is always the other girl whether Desmond saves Charlie or not. The whole concept was just really confusing for people which was why Shrodinger came up with the cat analogy in the first place. It makes a handy way of explaining the idea.

I just think they want Desmond to believe Charlie's life/death will effect the outcome.

Originally Posted by achau9598

so, what did the pulling of the cable have to do with it? could the cable pull have contributed to the crash of the copter?

Originally Posted by hardercore

Is the Catch-22 the situation itself? Desmond a has vision of this trek out into the jungle, but the only reason they are ever on the trek is because of the vision itself.

Originally Posted by Palaver

The Shrodinger Cat thing may be a poor way of explaining things here. I do think the important thing to make note of is that according to what we saw in Desmond's vision, Charlie was both killed and helped with the parachute. These two things obviously contradict each other. Charlie can't be dead and help with the parachute.

If what Desmond is seeing is multiple (two) universes (one with a dead Charlie and one with a living Charlie), it is entirely possible that the universe with the dead Charlie had Penny in the tree (for reasons unrelated to Charlie's actual death.)

Again, I don't really buy into all this. I just think it makes an interesting theory.

Originally Posted by The Zizz

But that's not really what a catch-22 is...it would have to be logically impossible for him to let charlie die, not just something he really didn't want to do / felt bad about.

Originally Posted by RichC2

Imo, the Catch 22 was based on Desmond deciding to save him or not, in his head if he saved Charlie he wouldn't see Penny, if he didn't save Charlie he would. Would it really work out this way? Probably not, but it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Originally Posted by riley_dude

Lost was reviewed in this weeks Entertainment Weekly. Here is an exerpt:

The show is anticlimactic, teasing, and a bit hollow. A solid mystery is a glorious thing-sly clues can float a show for quite a while. Like two and a half seasons.
Now Lost is treading water
The Others-so wonderfully, eerily introduced are now about as ominous as Dockeers-clad suburban neighbors

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Yeah there is also an article, in the Summer Preview issue(spidey on the cover), breaking down why Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Ugly Better aren't near as good as everyone thinks they are. It's actually pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Yeah there is also an article, in the Summer Preview issue(spidey on the cover), breaking down why Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Ugly Better aren't near as good as everyone thinks they are.

Originally Posted by The Zizz

But I don't think "Catch 22" exactly means "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It means that the rules are set up so that something is impossible.

Originally Posted by DVD Josh

No, if you look around at classic interpretations of the phrase, a better way of putting it is "a no-win situation", especially if you consider the book it comes from, in which the phrase is essentially a paradoxical brand of circular logic.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Catch-22 is a term, coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a general situation in which an individual has to accomplish two actions, both of which are dependent on the completion of the other.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Yeah there is also an article, in the Summer Preview issue(spidey on the cover), breaking down why Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Ugly Better aren't near as good as everyone thinks they are. It's actually pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by DVD Josh

No, if you look around at classic interpretations of the phrase, a better way of putting it is "a no-win situation", especially if you consider the book it comes from, in which the phrase is essentially a paradoxical brand of circular logic.

Originally Posted by riley_dude

This is the article that I am talking about.

Just because the review isn't favorable, it isn't accurate?
I think the review hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by hardercore

You can get out of missions if you're insane, but being able to ackowledge your insanity would prove you were sane -- to put it another way, if you were sane enough to know you were insane, you couldn't possibly be insane enough to get out of missions. That's the Catch-22 from the book as best I can recall ... but it's been a couple of years since I read it. It's a no-win situation, but only so on account of it being actually logically impossible to win in that situation.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Exactly. I could give two shits about what they think(it isn't really a review), but it does paint a fairly accurate portrait of each show's flaws.