Faraday and the "Rules" of Time Travel

Posted to J.J Abrams via the Fuselage:

I sincerely hope that the character of Faraday is written to be 'wrong' in his understanding of the 'rules' of time travel.

Otherwise, that would mean that the LOST writers have finally written something badly. Much can be overlooked in the minor subplot category, but this time travel aspect seems to be a significant investment in terms of the primary storyline.

The only hope you have, if Faraday is supposed to be correct, is to very convincingly sell the notion that the past can't be altered, which is something that Faraday himself has proved wrong by his own actions on two separate occasions.Either that, or Faraday must eventually learn that he's been mistaken.

To claim that Desmond is special and unique is a fairly feeble attempt to circumvent the supposed rules, which would be more or less physical laws, which can't have special circumstances if in fact they are valid. Compare gravity: How could one person by some loophole find themselves naturally unbound by the law of gravity? It has to be universal or it must be false.

What would make Desmond different than any other person? What made him unique in the first place seems to be the fact that Faraday's own past was altered by Faraday's future self giving instructions to a temporally unstuck Desmond, who yet proceeded to do things he'd never before done in 1996 (his past altered, too) in order to sort out his 2004 dilemma.

The rules are in direct contrast to the actions of the characters and the impact of those actions upon history. Most of the recent storyline has been greatly aided by the fact that the past CAN be altered. So, where did this rule come from?

To pose a 'what if" - What if Locke had thrown a knife into Ethan and killed him on the spot as opposed to his attempt to convince Ethan he was his leader? What could have stopped that from happening? Time has no will - it isn't even sentient. It would not intervene. There is no means by which that death would have been prevented simply because Locke was in the past. There is no logic to mandate automatic failure simply because previously Ethan was present to kidnap Claire and die by gunfire, etc. He would have simply died, and then the events after the crash of 815 would have flowed in a different order, or at least with someone other than the now dead Ethan doing the Claire-abducting.

So, if Locke had decided to throw a knife and kill his attacker? Seems like the 'rule' might be false in that case. But it need not be a knife thrown - the simple fact that Ethan shot a random bald guy in the jungle that day instead of finding no survivors and reporting back is evidence that his/the past was altered by the presence of John Locke.

Even if the time-travelers do nothing but stand there breathing in and out, that is still oxygen that would not have been consumed at that moment in time had not the travelers arrived. It is impossible NOT to alter the past if you travel to it, for your very presence there is a change.

So, the choice must be: Faraday is wrong, or the writing is bad.

Hopefully, the former is the case.