Why didn't Peter just slap the old lady, throw her over his shoulder, and run out?

[Ted]

:confused0006:

[Jabberwock]

Because the point was that she would let go of her husband, so that it would stop.

And because slapping an old, grief-stricken woman is Not Fine.

[Rekka]

Because Walter said that space and distance would make no difference; the connection would still be there. Now, if reasoning with her wouldn't work, perhaps the temporary solution would be to knock her out somehow? lol If she's unconscious, then she shouldn't be mentally connected to the "ghost" on the other side. Oh that would be so mean... Peter Punch! He'd never punch an old lady...

[Dep]

He has been weaponised though............

[Rekka]

He has been weaponised though............

We don't know that to be 100% true yet. Goes back to the eps 'Reciprocity' and your interpretations of it. To me, I think he was plain sick of sitting by, "always a step behind." Especially now that he feels more connected to our side, I think he wants to protect those he loves...and therefore, he needs to try and get the upper hand on this war.

[MaDdster]

Ahhh, but just because she would be unconscious doesn't mean that the connection would fade. I thought the same thing, Rekka, but if you really think about it...
also, it would seem out of character. Then again, he destroys the 'tin men' (nickname for shape shifters)without the bat of an eyelash.

There are SO many possibilities! :confused0006:

[Rekka]

Ahhh, but just because she would be unconscious doesn't mean that the connection would fade. I thought the same thing, Rekka, but if you really think about it...

*shrug* I got the feeling that she needed to be thinking about Derek (and Derek on the other side had to be thinking of her, aka the emotional connection breaking through the hole between universes) for either of them to see each other. Either that or the cartoonish picture in my head of Peter saving the day by punching the poor lady was too much to hold back. lol Not to say that he would actually do it... :confused0066:

[vlada_vvv]

AHAHAHA)) You've just made my day, Ted!:haha:

Actually, I also was thinking about this question))) The answer is - to make more dramatic scene (and they did it SO well) and to broke the connection between the two. I mean the woman had to let her husband go on emotional level, not physical.

[RoughDiamonds]

I'm rather horrified that this suggestion has been raised at all. Per the explanation, there is an emotional quantum entanglement between Over Here Alice and Over There Derek that is causing this phenomenon (rift to open between universes). It is not bound by physical distance and it due to dual intense and identical emotional attachment that each feels for their lost spouse.

Rendering poor Alice unconscious would not stop the rift from increasing. It has to do with Alice's choice and free will to let her Derek go that will break the entanglement.

ETA: "horrified" comment was not aimed at cartoonish image but original thread title. :)

And I don't care how "weaponized" Peter is, it should not cause him to break out in violent acts where there is a more logical resolution. The "weaponizing" of Peter has in my opinion something to do with how he will respond to his own destiny...not how he treats others around him in general.

[MaDdster]

*shrug* I got the feeling that she needed to be thinking about Derek (and Derek on the other side had to be thinking of her, aka the emotional connection breaking through the hole between universes) for either of them to see each other. Either that or the cartoonish picture in my head of Peter saving the day by punching the poor lady was too much to hold back. lol Not to say that he would actually do it... :confused0066:

Haha, I find myself chuckling at the idea. Thinking about it is funny but Peter actually doing it ... is not so humerus.

[Rekka]

Hence I stress the word cartoonish. I, in no way, shape, or form, condone beating. I didn't mention it to horrify anybody with the thought, nor do I think Peter as a character would do something like that. Sorry to have put a disturbing thought in your mind. It must be a mood I'm in today.

[tricked]

Because Walter said that space and distance would make no difference; the connection would still be there. Now, if reasoning with her wouldn't work, perhaps the temporary solution would be to knock her out somehow? lol If she's unconscious, then she shouldn't be mentally connected to the "ghost" on the other side. Oh that would be so mean... Peter Punch! He'd never punch an old lady... He would never punch an old lady? He took a chance and shot a mother being held hostage by Fauxlivia. Good thing his chance paid off and she was a shapeshifter ... otherwise, too bad for the kid I suppose huh? :)

Just sayin ...


I'm rather horrified that this suggestion has been raised at all. Per the explanation, there is an emotional quantum entanglement between Over Here Alice and Over There Derek that is causing this phenomenon (rift to open between universes). It is not bound by physical distance and it due to dual intense and identical emotional attachment that each feels for their lost spouse.

Rendering poor Alice unconscious would not stop the rift from increasing. It has to do with Alice's choice and free will to let her Derek go that will break the entanglement.

ETA: "horrified" comment was not aimed at cartoonish image but original thread title. :)

And I don't care how "weaponized" Peter is, it should not cause him to break out in violent acts where there is a more logical resolution. The "weaponizing" of Peter has in my opinion something to do with how he will respond to his own destiny...not how he treats others around him in general. So lying to Olivia and hunting down and killing shapeshifters behind his friends and loved ones back isn't a violent act ... it's logical resolution?

And as far as beating an old woman into unconsciousness ... I agree that's clearly not a rational choice. However, suppose they had tazed her? It would have put her temporarily unconscious perhaps, and so IN THAT MOMENT ... the ripping might have ceased. Then, when she came too, they might could have talked sense to her and explained things without the prescence of the AlterDerek in the room, confusing her emotions and messing with her. It might have been a legitimate choice to make .... safely taze one person, or risk a vortex swallowing up who-knows-how-large a chunk of the earth.

Just saying (squared) lol :)


Hence I stress the word cartoonish. I, in no way, shape, or form, condone beating. I didn't mention it to horrify anybody with the thought, nor do I think Peter as a character would do something like that. Sorry to have put a disturbing thought in your mind. It must be a mood I'm in today. Did someone imply that you did condone beating, or that you meant to horrify people by implanting thoughts within them?

I'm beginning to wonder how some of the posters here tolerate watching Fringe at all ... with all it's negativity, horrific events, and human trauma and gore .... ???

[RoughDiamonds]

He would never punch an old lady? He took a chance and shot a mother being held hostage by Fauxlivia. Good thing his chance paid off and she was a shapeshifter ... otherwise, too bad for the kid I suppose huh? :)

Just sayin ...

So lying to Olivia and hunting down and killing shapeshifters behind his friends and loved ones back isn't a violent act ... it's logical resolution?

And as far as beating an old woman into unconsciousness ... I agree that's clearly not a rational choice. However, suppose they had tazed her? It would have put her temporarily unconscious perhaps, and so IN THAT MOMENT ... the ripping might have ceased. Then, when she came too, they might could have talked sense to her and explained things without the prescence of the AlterDerek in the room, confusing her emotions and messing with her. It might have been a legitimate choice to make .... safely taze one person, or risk a vortex swallowing up who-knows-how-large a chunk of the earth.


If you read my post, I indicated the "weaponized" Peter could resort to violence when it pertained to getting answers about his destiny (e.g. doomsday device) so his killing the shapeshifters would be justified in his own minde. His lying to Olivia is actually a separate issue that has not yet been addressed by the show nor do I consider lying a violent act. Tazing Alice would does not serve to help address his own questions about his destiny or choices he will have to face and is in contradiction with the entire theme of the episode which I read as the strength of emotional connections. Both Peter and Olivia have consistently tried to find "another way" to resolve difficult and impossible situations. Rendering Alice unconscious for me would have been somewhat of a cop out and would not have advanced to resolve the Peter and Olivia rift...and generally would have not made for very good TV. Just sayin.

[tricked]

If you read my post, I indicated the "weaponized" Peter could resort to violence when it pertained to getting answers about his destiny (e.g. doomsday device) so his killing the shapeshifters would be justified in his own minde. His lying to Olivia is actually a separate issue that has not yet been addressed by the show nor do I consider lying a violent act. Tazing Alice would does not serve to help address his own questions about his destiny or choices he will have to face and is in contradiction with the entire theme of the episode which I read as the strength of emotional connections. Both Peter and Olivia have consistently tried to find "another way" to resolve difficult and impossible situations. Rendering Alice unconscious for me would have been somewhat of a cop out and would not have advanced to resolve the Peter and Olivia rift...and generally would have not made for very good TV. Just sayin. I read your post ... and have now re-read it. Where in it do you say that he could resort to acts of violence?

If this is what you were implying, it wasn't coherent but rather confusing ... because on one hand you said that you didn't care how weaponised he was, it shouldn't cause him to break out in violent acts. And then you say immediately after that what you think the weaponising actually pertains too. It reads as though you are saying his "weaponizing" is irrelevant, that he would not commit violent acts regardless or treat people around him any different in general.

I wasn't addressing his weaponization ... merely whether or not he would commit violent acts when other means are available to him. Which he does.

And in regards to rendering Alice unconscious ... from a logical point of view it makes sense as a possible last resort. The OP wasn't talking about whether or not it would benefit the O/P ship emotional lessons it was trying to teach to render her unconcsious. As an emo plot device, it worked just fine.

[Conrad]

Honestly, I had wondered why Broyles didn't order Olivia to shoot the woman. That would have solved the problem for sure, and Broyles has done something similar before (with the Russian cosmonaut fellow).

[Nelbertine]

The cynic in me thinks that Peter wanted to get his groove on, and he decided that socking Mrs Merchant in the kisser wouldn't be a tick in the postive column as far as Olivia was concerned!!!

[Olive_Dunham]

Because (Walter said that) even if they were miles away, their connection was by then so strong that they would have torn the fabric of the universe apart whatsoever...

[capri]

Cause disabling Alice in any way would only be a temporary fix. Once she came around they'd be faced with the exact same problem. The solution was to have her let go not have her incapacitated.


And yeah no TV show is going to have its protagonist sucker punch an old lady.

[TheOtherMe]

It would be too easy!:P

No, but really like everyone else is saying, it wouldn't work. She needed to come to a realization to be able to let go of the connection herself--

In story telling perspective, Peter and Olivia taking the time to explain what is happening to her adds an element to both Peter revealing a personal belief system and it also put them both in a parental role.

This old women represents having to take care of something fragile, but is having MASSIVE effects on the universe(s). To deal with her would be like to deal with your child who just wants to start driving before she knows how. You can take the car keys away and lock him or her in their rooms, but this may not solve the problem. It just prolongs it, as there is probably a better chance to explain 'the whys' in a loving way. You show your child respect in hopes they listen, because you are serious about the nature of whatever you are dealing with, not just trying to control your child's life.

The whole thing is a type of forshaddowing both the fragile states of relationships and the fragile states of becoming a parent.

[fidelito]

Isn't cheaper to AMBERize the old lady than an whole building, in fact a pretty and an expensive one ??

yeah, i think peter should have put out her misery !!

this was dumb episode, the entangled theory, for sure is a nice thing for writers to use, but to enphasied on emotions of ' let it go ' is just dull.

at least, they should test if the old lady was producing some kind of cortexiphan alike drug that gave her the ability to be jennifer love hewitt.
well, in the end the old lady whispered less crap than jlh.
thank you producers !!!:tiphat:

edit ps: Nicholas Cage and his pity eyes wants to say something aswell:
NC : '' TELL MY WIFE... I LOVER HER ... ''

[Six-fingered Girl]

It would be too easy!:P

No, but really like everyone else is saying, it wouldn't work. She needed to come to a realization to be able to let go of the connection herself--

In story telling perspective, Peter and Olivia taking the time to explain what is happening to her adds an element to both Peter revealing a personal belief system and it also put them both in a parental role.

This old women represents having to take care of something fragile, but is having MASSIVE effects on the universe(s). To deal with her would be like to deal with your child who just wants to start driving before she knows how. You can take the car keys away and lock him or her in their rooms, but this may not solve the problem. It just prolongs it, as there is probably a better chance to explain 'the whys' in a loving way. You show your child respect in hopes they listen, because you are serious about the nature of whatever you are dealing with, not just trying to control your child's life.

The whole thing is a type of forshaddowing both the fragile states of relationships and the fragile states of becoming a parent.

What a beautiful way to put it! :happy15:

Throughout the episode, I was impressed with the team Olivia and Peter made, both supporting each other in their belief in and search for a "better way." Punching the lady in the face, aside from being established as ineffective, wouldn't be the "better way." This is foreshadowing of the battle for both universes that is coming, which Olivia and Peter believe both universes can survive. We've long known that they need each other to make it through the impending struggle, and it comforts me to see that they work together and play off each other so well. I hope they can continue to trust one another, because the universes need this team of protectors intact!

[tricked]

Honestly, I had wondered why Broyles didn't order Olivia to shoot the woman. That would have solved the problem for sure, and Broyles has done something similar before (with the Russian cosmonaut fellow). That is an excellent point. Rather than allow a tear in the universe, or begin the amberization of it ... just shoot her if she doesn't cooperate lol.

But yeah, Fringe isn't always about science, the greater good, mystery, or logical choices. This was another, mostly, P/O love-food epi where what-makes-sense need not apply.

* And one other thing I noticed, when Walter handed Broyles the remote to trigger the amber, Broyles was poised to do it ... but then we cut away to the Peter/Olivia/poltergeist diaglogue for another three minutes !!! Then when we cut back to Broyles, he is all relieved and turns the remote off. What did he do, just stare at it for three minutes frozen in time?


Isn't cheaper to AMBERize the old lady than an whole building, in fact a pretty and an expensive one ??

yeah, i think peter should have put out her misery !!

this was dumb episode, the entangled theory, for sure is a nice thing for writers to use, but to enphasied on emotions of ' let it go ' is just dull.

at least, they should test if the old lady was producing some kind of cortexiphan alike drug that gave her the ability to be jennifer love hewitt.
well, in the end the old lady whispered less crap than jlh.
thank you producers !!!:tiphat:

edit ps: Nicholas Cage and his pity eyes wants to say something aswell:
NC : '' TELL MY WIFE... I LOVER HER ... '' Your pith deserves a clap of the hands lol :happy15::haha:

[Omniscient_Jay]

We need this as a deleted/bonus scene on the DVD or something. XD

[Albert]

Isn't cheaper to AMBERize the old lady than an whole building, in fact a pretty and an expensive one ??

yeah, i think peter should have put out her misery !!

this was dumb episode, the entangled theory, for sure is a nice thing for writers to use, but to enphasied on emotions of ' let it go ' is just dull.
:kick:

And why should the Observers care about pathetic humans anyway? I mean, Observers can travel though time, they can travel the multiverse, they have access to an infinite number of universes. Heck, their power is practically unlimited, and they are practically gods. Humans are like ants to them. If the red and blue universes are dangerous to the the Observers, why don't they just wipe them both out to get them out of the way? :confused0006:

[tricked]

We need this as a deleted/bonus scene on the DVD or something. XD :happy15:


:kick:

And why should the Observers care about pathetic humans anyway? I mean, Observers can travel though time, they can travel the multiverse, they have access to an infinite number of universes. Heck, their power is practically unlimited, and they are practically gods. Humans are like ants to them. If the red and blue universes are dangerous to the the Observers, why don't they just wipe them both out to get them out of the way? :confused0006: I think you are assuming an awful lot about the Observers here ... imo :)

[TheOtherMe]

:kick:

And why should the Observers care about pathetic humans anyway? I mean, Observers can travel though time, they can travel the multiverse, they have access to an infinite number of universes. Heck, their power is practically unlimited, and they are practically gods. Humans are like ants to them. If the red and blue universes are dangerous to the the Observers, why don't they just wipe them both out to get them out of the way? :confused0006:

Because maybe they aren't limitless.

This episode introduced two rather interesting concepts. The bigger of the two is the idea that [human] emotions effect 'the worlds'.

The Observers themselves seem to believe that in order to do their job, they can not allow themselves to feel too much. This is why I think they have to working on behalf of some one who does care about something.

ZFT was this idea that we have to build super soldiers to protect ourselves, what if at some point, in some universe, these Observers are just that?

They go along with this long process we have seen of creating super humans go wrong. We see that out emotions can make us unruly and that in some cases enhancements makes the hormones worse. Even with the shapeshifters, we see Newton emotionally provoke both Olivias (Grey Matters and Do Shapeshifters dream of...) It's not until we get to Milo that we see that a higher brain function can eliminate compulsive emotion.

So even though this episode goes out of it's way to convey understanding and compassion is a good thing, there is still a backlash because it may be that emotion can destroy everything as easily as it can be created...playing then also on Peter's emotional connection to the machine(s).

Of course it's also not like the Observers can't defect...maybe there is no way to rid the worlds of emotions and maybe the lesson will be that we are not suppose to. It's not about elimination, but balance and some type acceptance.

[gillybee]

Why didn't Peter just slap the old lady, throw her over his shoulder, and run out?

Simple he is not a caveman

http://casakefir.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/caveman1.jpg

[Dana Hale]

http://fringe-forum.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Why didn't Peter just slap the old lady, throw her over his shoulder, and run out?


Because it was a plot device for Olivia to hear his whole speech about "You've had what most of us dream about, spending a lifetime with the one you love..." This speech is what allowed Olivia to get over her fear of trying for a relationship with Peter...it drives her to get out the whiskey, go to the Bishop house, and claim her man. You go Liv. "I want what you want."

[Albert]

:happy15:

I think you are assuming an awful lot about the Observers here ... imo :)
But the question remains, why should the observers care about humans? Would it not be easier for them to solve this problem between the universes simply by eliminating all of the humans who are causing the problem? You and others in this thread have correctly pointed out that it would have been much easier to simply eliminate the old woman than to convince her to "let go". The same is true of the observers. Yet, they seem to be doing things the hard way. Why would they do that if it would be so much easier simply to destroy the humans causing the problem? :confused0006:

[Albert]

This episode introduced two rather interesting concepts. The bigger of the two is the idea that [human] emotions effect 'the worlds'.

The Observers themselves seem to believe that in order to do their job, they can not allow themselves to feel too much. This is why I think they have to working on behalf of some one who does care about something.

ZFT was this idea that we have to build super soldiers to protect ourselves, what if at some point, in some universe, these Observers are just that?
Great idea, TheOtherMe. :sofa:

[tricked]

But the question remains, why should the observers care about humans? Would it not be easier for them to solve this problem between the universes simply by eliminating all of the humans who are causing the problem? You and others in this thread have correctly pointed out that it would have been much easier to simply eliminate the old woman than to convince her to "let go". The same is true of the observers. Yet, they seem to be doing things the hard way. Why would they do that if it would be so much easier simply to destroy the humans causing the problem? :confused0006: *bolding in your quote mine*

Okay, I think when thinking about the observers, we need to almost use a "logic grid" (remember those? lol) in order to eliminate some possible answers to your question. In other words, list the traits and qualities about them which we know, apply Occam's Razor, and see what comes out the other side on the "answer" aspect of the puzzle.

I'm not going to do that here lol ... but let's just examine the bolded question above. "Why should the Observers care about humans?"

To answer that, I'm going to say that they don't particular "care" about us. August showed us that much. They understand we are unique individually, but they don't "love" us. So in that regard, I don't think they "should" care about us, because I don't think they particularly do. I think they are more are less neutral when it comes to emotional investment in us.

That having been said .... I think they often LIMIT their abilities in regards to humans. They don't treat us as lab rats ... however they don't exactly show us warm and fuzzies either. But they do exhibit RESTRAINT and for some reason, they have as a "rule" over them ... "do not get involved".

Also ... another rule of theirs, is arguably: "do not change the future by introducing new sets of probabilities."

So what they CAN do ... they DO NOT do. They restrain themselves.

So the question, I think is ... "why do the Observers restrain themselves with humans?"

And the answer to that, i think is quite obvious. They submit to some humans who want them to show restraint. They submit to a set of "ethics" as it were. Which they often cross the line of.

I think if they didn't ultimately answer/submit to some kind of human being or group of humans, they wouldn't exhibit restraint towards us at all.

So in answer to your question,"why should the observers care about humans?" .... my answer is, "some other humans want them to for some reason."

So who are those people that want them too? And why would they want them too? Does Brown Betty tell us ? lol .....

[Duque de Osuna]

He has been weaponised though............

What ever happened to that? he did not seem too weaponized in 6B. Granted it would be hard to incorporate that aspect of his personality while he was trying to convince Olivia to give a relationship with him a shot.

[ikkokusenkin]

*bolding in your quote mine*

Okay, I think when thinking about the observers, we need to almost use a "logic grid" (remember those? lol) in order to eliminate some possible answers to your question. In other words, list the traits and qualities about them which we know, apply Occam's Razor, and see what comes out the other side on the "answer" aspect of the puzzle.

I'm not going to do that here lol ... but let's just examine the bolded question above. "Why should the Observers care about humans?"

To answer that, I'm going to say that they don't particular "care" about us. August showed us that much. They understand we are unique individually, but they don't "love" us. So in that regard, I don't think they "should" care about us, because I don't think they particularly do. I think they are more are less neutral when it comes to emotional investment in us.

That having been said .... I think they often LIMIT their abilities in regards to humans. They don't treat us as lab rats ... however they don't exactly show us warm and fuzzies either. But they do exhibit RESTRAINT and for some reason, they have as a "rule" over them ... "do not get involved".

Also ... another rule of theirs, is arguably: "do not change the future by introducing new sets of probabilities."

So what they CAN do ... they DO NOT do. They restrain themselves.

So the question, I think is ... "why do the Observers restrain themselves with humans?"

And the answer to that, i think is quite obvious. They submit to some humans who want them to show restraint. They submit to a set of "ethics" as it were. Which they often cross the line of.

I think if they didn't ultimately answer/submit to some kind of human being or group of humans, they wouldn't exhibit restraint towards us at all.

So in answer to your question,"why should the observers care about humans?" .... my answer is, "some other humans want them to for some reason."

So who are those people that want them too? And why would they want them too? Does Brown Betty tell us ? lol .....

Hmmm... I dunno if I agree with this part completely:

I think if they didn't ultimately answer/submit to some kind of human being or group of humans, they wouldn't exhibit restraint towards us at all.
I mean, there are lots of things we humans care about that don't control us. Take our pets, for instance. We love them and would never intentionally harm them. And yet, it's not like we're answering to them (or to other pets) in anyway. Now, before anyone makes that kind of link, I'm not saying humans are like pets to the Observers. I just suck at making up hypotheticals LOL.

What if the Observers are just benevolent, dispassionate beings, neither interested nor disinterested in what humans do? All their subsequent meddling may only be their attempt to fix September's mistake of getting caught by Walternate in the lab.

[TheOtherMe]

Hmmm... I dunno if I agree with this part completely:

I mean, there are lots of things we humans care about that don't control us. Take our pets, for instance. We love them and would never intentionally harm them. And yet, it's not like we're answering to them (or to other pets) in anyway. Now, before anyone makes that kind of link, I'm not saying humans are like pets to the Observers. I just suck at making up hypotheticals LOL.

What if the Observers are just benevolent, dispassionate beings, neither interested nor disinterested in what humans do? All their subsequent meddling may only be their attempt to fix September's mistake of getting caught by Walternate in the lab.

I can be on board with this, but it still it goes with this idea that they do care about something, even if it's not 'exactly' us...

But because their actions can effect us, it kind of does then make it partually about us, because we have the capasity to get in their way and ruin their 'preferred' course or visa versa.

In the episode with Milo (I think it was "The Plateau") they made this case in point where an ability to tap into probable futures, or predictabilities, was more efficiant if the being lost his sense of compassion for others (aka higher brain function). The Observers are a perfected version of that.

However, even when August defected and couldn't not 'feel' for Hollis, September showed a side of himself in which he was concerned for the life of August, showing that even with in their lack of compassion for humanity, they don't completely lack it for each other.

I am just saying the fact that they can even make mistakes, suggests that they are not in complete control, that they have their own belief system, and that in effect, we can effect them, just as much as they can effect us (we observer their observations and they can come to care for us) more or less making them like us, just that perhaps they are extreme [early period] Buddhists for an unforseeable reason.

Buddhism had to go through 18 schools of thought to finally conclude their early works were in some ways about denial and not about solutions to suffering. It eventually gets turned on it's head to say, ok, we do feel, we are here, we should be here, but maybe we can be here and not suffer so much, and that doing so has to be about caring for the suffering of others (utilitarianism) because their is a realization that we are all here together and that 'togetherness' can have an universal effect (Karma-->Dharma/Adharma--->Karma--->Dharma/Adharma)

I kind of see the Observers going down this road...

[tricked]

Hmmm... I dunno if I agree with this part completely:

I mean, there are lots of things we humans care about that don't control us. Take our pets, for instance. We love them and would never intentionally harm them. And yet, it's not like we're answering to them (or to other pets) in anyway. Now, before anyone makes that kind of link, I'm not saying humans are like pets to the Observers. I just suck at making up hypotheticals LOL.

What if the Observers are just benevolent, dispassionate beings, neither interested nor disinterested in what humans do? All their subsequent meddling may only be their attempt to fix September's mistake of getting caught by Walternate in the lab. Actually, I think the pet analogy is a good one, and makes a good point. We don't abuse animals, even though we don't answer to one of them.

Although ... pets (like dogs) are distinctly different from us. Even if the Observers are not human, they have our likeness. :)

Or, it could be ... that we have theirs ...... :observer::confused0066::P

Either way, I think that we are the closest thing they can perhaps relate to that exist. So far as we know. So they might be more likely to have compassion on us for that reason, if for no other.

But, they do seem to care about some of our choices, as TheOtherMe pointed out. They are concerned about Walter's choices (they said as much). They have fear when it comes to their own choices as well in regards to us. I think it's obvious their own fates are intertwined with ours somehow, on some level.

[TheOtherMe]

Actually, I think the pet analogy is a good one, and makes a good point. We don't abuse animals, even though we don't answer to one of them.

Although ... pets (like dogs) are distinctly different from us. Even if the Observers are not human, they have our likeness. :)

Or, it could be ... that we have theirs ...... :observer::confused0066::P

Either way, I think that we are the closest thing they can perhaps relate to that exist. So far as we know. So they might be more likely to have compassion on us for that reason, if for no other.

But, they do seem to care about some of our choices, as TheOtherMe pointed out. They are concerned about Walter's choices (they said as much). They have fear when it comes to their own choices as well in regards to us. I think it's obvious their own fates are intertwined with ours somehow, on some level.

I was thinking about your "pet" analogy, and I think it's a great one!

--For instance I remember last year I saw this program where labs could 'read' symbols and they where taught to react to those symbols: different reactions to different symbols...

One another note, in "A Beautiful Mind" Russel Crow's character was trying to solve some 'proof' or equation by mapping the algerythms of pigeons. I think he was trying to suggest that their group configurations may be able to determine upcoming configurations (actions to actions, movement to movement---probabilities) Someone had suggested on another thread that humanity could be like an experiment to the Observers and in the same sense that we can teach animals to be more like us (because perhaps we all derive from the same biological components), the same could be said with the relationship with the Observers...or visa versa depending on origin of species.

[ikkokusenkin]

Someone had suggested on another thread that humanity could be like an experiment to the Observers and in the same sense that we can teach animals to be more like us (because perhaps we all derive from the same biological components), the same could be said with the relationship with the Observers...or visa versa depending on origin of species.
That's a really interesting theory!

[WhatsUpDoc1958]

My theory about the Observers is that their universe (the yellow one, I presume) has a non-interference directive with respect to other universes they observe. Their travels to the Red and Blue universes may be part of an academic historical study related to The Rise and Fall of the Red and Blue Universes.

However, some Observers are in disagreement with the Non-Interference Directive, and believe in compassionate assistance to their sibling universes. Rather than playing God to the other universes, they play a benevolent nanny, guiding them past the dangerous time of destructive modes of inter-universal, and eventually, inter-temporal travel. If they can survive this dangerous time period, they will come to develop universe-friendly modes of transportation between universes.

[phx219]

Well, I do agree that there may be two factions of Observers (and were do the Rogues fit in?) and I do believe that they may be from a third Universe, since September's mistake and subsequent course correction and loops didn't delete the Observers from existance. Of course, since they are traveling outside of time, it may actually mean that their future was changed and no longer exists, and that this new future contains a totally different faction of Observers.