The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: The Great Scald on December 22, 2013, 12:02:49 am
-
What do you think of Nietzsche's ideas on "eternal recurrence"?
Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life.
What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'
Do you agree with Nietzsche's view that time is infinite but all things are finite, so they'll eventually happen over and over again for all time?
-
Eternal recurrence is an interesting idea, for sure, although also depressing (to me) in many ways. Suppose that the universe was born in a big bang and will eventually end in a collapse, followed by another big bang, and so on - so every single event in the universe will happen again in infinity.
It's a depressing as well as liberating idea, since this theory puts all responsibility on our shoulders. Definitely more depressing than liberating, if you look at the findings in neuroscience that Bakker likes to bring up - that we can't really change anything about our lives, since our "free choices" are the results of unconscious processes and not free at all. We're a part of nature, not immaterial minds outside of it. So, if you take this together with Nietzsche's theory on infinity, the obvious conclusion is "you're doomed to relive the same experiences and thoughts for all time, not even death is an escape, and there's nothing you can do about it."
(To use myself as an example - I've been through several drug addictions and depressions in my life. Some of them medical, some of them the "existential depression" variety that I'm feeling atm. So, to me at least, the idea of eternally re-living this life over and over isn't exactly a happy thought.)
The above is just speculations, obviously. We don't know the inner workings of the universe. For all I know, Poincaré was wrong and we might be living in an omniverse with infinite universes and infinite permutations of ourselves. Maybe the big questions of existence will never be answered at all, or at least not by monkeys like us.
-
I won't pretend to be as eloquent as you, Auriga, but I agree that it is more depressing then liberating.
Big bang or not, if the universe is truly infinite there would be an unlimited number of "Daniel Christopher Martin's" writing an infinite number of various posts on this very website. There would also be and infinite amount of "Daniel Christopher Martin's" doing an infinite amount of anything else as well... What can you possibly do with an existence like that which could be considered stand up performance?
Now, if we were to live this life over and over again, that could be a different story. You would have an innumerable amount of chances to shape your existence into a "perfect life".
Due to the fact that I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't think anyone can live a "perfect life". No matter how many chances you had the end result would be the same, death and oblivion.
That brings me to my current philosophy, you only live once with no rewards or punishments after. Live however the fuck you want to.
-
I think it's an interesting idea. Not much more than that.
I'm also a believer in Block Universe Theory. I think everything was always going to happen and already has happened. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have no free will (though I kind of doubt we do). But I do think that reality/existence/the uni and/or omniverse is timeless. It is One Eternal Thing. It always has been, always was, and always will be. It also has infinite variation...because the concept of Infinity exists, it means Infinity does exist. Thus, reality and its variations (the Omniverse).
-
In regard to the conditions that allow time as we know it to exist, I don't think they will always be sustained.
I don't really buy it.
-
Time is a tricky thing to build a philosophic theory upon.
It's a depressing as well as liberating idea, since this theory puts all responsibility on our shoulders. Definitely more depressing than liberating, if you look at the findings in neuroscience that Bakker likes to bring up - that we can't really change anything about our lives, since our "free choices" are the results of unconscious processes and not free at all. We're a part of nature, not immaterial minds outside of it. So, if you take this together with Nietzsche's theory on infinity, the obvious conclusion is "you're doomed to relive the same experiences and thoughts for all time, not even death is an escape, and there's nothing you can do about it."
(To use myself as an example - I've been through several drug addictions and depressions in my life. Some of them medical, some of them the "existential depression" variety that I'm feeling atm. So, to me at least, the idea of eternally re-living this life over and over isn't exactly a happy thought.)
I always seem to think about a lung or a heart when I think of the universe (omniverse) being infinite. I generally don't make it past sheer existential horror to sustained depression when I happen upon with right mix of thoughts like these.
And I apologize now because I know that reading or hearing optimist perspectives makes me want to punch people in their faces when I'm in a shitty mood...
I read your post and I know the kind of mental path I've traveled to gain my personal perspective so I think that if by some miracle I'm still doing this for the "first" time or I can influence the passage of events I want to do whatever I can to make the rest of my eternal recurrence different from the life that's been lived so far (not that it's all been bad but I have change to affect).
Big bang or not, if the universe is truly infinite there would be an unlimited number of "Daniel Christopher Martin's" writing an infinite number of various posts on this very website. There would also be and infinite amount of "Daniel Christopher Martin's" doing an infinite amount of anything else as well... What can you possibly do with an existence like that which could be considered stand up performance?
Well, in that omniverse there's only one GJ being the best possible of all GJs. And it's either you... or it's not ;).
Actually, io9 (I believe) posted or reposted a really cool (by cool, I did mean horrifically terrifying) possible experiment to test this... you'd be Jet Li in One without all the intra-omniverse martial arts. [EDIT: Quantum Suicide: How to Prove the Multiverse Exists, in the Most Violent Way Possible (http://io9.com/5891740/quantum-suicide-how-to-prove-the-multiverse-exists-in-the-most-violent-way-possible).]
Now, if we were to live this life over and over again, that could be a different story. You would have an innumerable amount of chances to shape your existence into a "perfect life".
Due to the fact that I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't think anyone can live a "perfect life". No matter how many chances you had the end result would be the same, death and oblivion.
Even subjectively ideal, I think Auriga is suggesting that you write the book of your life once and then read it over and over for eternity.
That brings me to my current philosophy, you only live once with no rewards or punishments after. Live however the fuck you want to.
I would simply suggest that most people have a sense that the spark of life is limited to Earth. I would ask that we all tend this place and the people who stay behind and come after (especially if it's possibly us again) for the "better."
I think it's an interesting idea. Not much more than that.
I'm also a believer in Block Universe Theory. I think everything was always going to happen and already has happened. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have no free will (though I kind of doubt we do). But I do think that reality/existence/the uni and/or omniverse is timeless. It is One Eternal Thing. It always has been, always was, and always will be. It also has infinite variation...because the concept of Infinity exists, it means Infinity does exist. Thus, reality and its variations (the Omniverse).
The One Thing could be contracting? Or there could be flow to it, inside/outside it. Certain fractals could touch each other for short times in the crossing of space and time.
In regard to the conditions that allow time as we know it to exist, I don't think they will always be sustained.
I don't really buy it.
Agreed, purely from the perspective of psychology. We don't unilaterally perceive time the same. It would seem the most rigorous explanation for time then must come from the mathematical languages, not linguistic philosophics bound by the vocal chords of us humans.
-
The basic premise of Nietzsche's theory is that the probability of an universe coming into existence exactly like our own is finite. Now, if either time or space are infinite (which Nietzsche clearly thinks), then math tells us that our existence will happen over and over again an infinite number of times. If A) the likelihood of this universe's existence is anything other than zero, and B) time/space is infinite, then infinity times anything other than zero is infinity.
You have to believe in both A and B to believe the conclusion, obviously. (B is the doubtful one, since we don't really know the nature of time/space). But if you accept the premise, then you also have to accept the logical conclusion.
Now, if we were to live this life over and over again, that could be a different story. You would have an innumerable amount of chances to shape your existence into a "perfect life".
The whole argument of eternal recurrence isn't that a constant "you" will live forever and have infinite chances, but rather that "you" will exist infinite times and have the exact same chances forever.
That brings me to my current philosophy, you only live once with no rewards or punishments after. Live however the fuck you want to.
That's definitely one of the reasons why Nietzsche embraced the idea of eternal recurrence - there won't be any rewards for altruistic people in an afterlife, but victims will be victims forever and winners will be winners forever. It's pretty much the opposite of Christian theology. The quoted bit in my OP is part of a chapter that basically makes the point "Choose to live a happy life, because what you do will be repeated forever."
(And, of course, my point was that almost nothing in our lives is actually chosen by us, and that "choice" itself might not really exist in any meaningful sense if we look at the neuroscientific evidence.)
-
I'm calling some BS on the 'no choice' stuff - it's all too attractive to our brains that sniff out the least effort option. At the very least what the hell are you going to do about 'no choice' - make an alternate choice because of it?
We don't live at the level of absolute deterministic knowledge - it is not our breed. To act on it is like complaining about how deep sea pressure would crush a human in an instant - but deep sea creatures live at those depths, not us.
-
Callan, what do you think of the mathematical arguments for and against eternal recurrence?
At the very least what the hell are you going to do about 'no choice'
Nothing at all.
We don't live at the level of absolute deterministic knowledge
Duh. We're a part of a (deterministic) universe, not outside observers, so obviously our knowledge of it is gonna be limited.
In the end, a human brain trying to study itself is like a fingertip trying to touch itself.
-
For the record, I utterly despise the idea of having no choice or free will, and the idea that it's somehow attractive because it removes the responsibility for my actions, let alone that it's easier, is, well, completely absurd to me personally. I'd much, much rather have to accept responsibility for all the bad, hurtful, humiliating, and outright stupid things I've done in my 23 years of life if it meant that I actually had the choice to do those things in the first place.
My hatred of the concept of a universe where I lack free will, however, does little to convince me that it isn't true, or at least a very distinct and disturbingly compelling possibility.
-
At some point I accepted and embraced "choice" instead of arguing with myself and others whether it is yours or not.
If you say that it is not yours, who is guiding you? Some creator who intervenes maybe?
You obviously accept humans as limited in our understanding, and I must say that that goes for whining dead Germans too ;D.
Callan, what do you think of the mathematical arguments for and against eternal recurrence?
They might very well be based on information made up by monkeys, which means they will vary in degree and cause arguments for and
against it.
I think that if we agree that we are very limited, there is no need to get "hang ups" on certain ideas. Evolve ideas is what we should do, not get stuck with them.
Might add that Mckennas theory of novelty seems relevant in this discussion. The opposite of eternal recurrence. Unfortunately I do not
have the English skills to delve into that theory, maybe someone here has heard of it?
-
Not necessarily supporting Royce's contention but for the uninformed:
McKenna's Theory of Novelty basically predicts that history happens in oscillations of novelty, which repeat the novel spikes of human history in intensifying and less intermittent moments until finally we reach a point where it's all novelty, all the time (that we supposedly passed now as late in his life McKenna attempted to bind his theory to the 2012 evolved consciousness hype).
Novelty, for those who don't know, has nothing to do with books, though novels can be novel: novelty is new, original, or unique, and in McKenna's mind, each instance of novelty surpassed the last as something which has truly never happened before (even in Omniversal repetition).
-
Thanks M :)
-
No problem, Royce. Glad to offer help when and where I can.
-
Callan, what do you think of the mathematical arguments for and against eternal recurrence?
I'd ask what they are based on? Do they not concern themselves with the eventual heat or ice death of the universe?
At the very least what the hell are you going to do about 'no choice'
Nothing at all.
So this typing is just redundant noise making - like a belch from a dead man as we shift him into a coffin?
We don't live at the level of absolute deterministic knowledge
Duh. We're a part of a (deterministic) universe, not outside observers, so obviously our knowledge of it is gonna be limited.
Then why do we speak like we are party to being outside observers who see there being no choice, when we are not?
The lottery numbers coming up are written in deterministic stone, essentially. So, what are they?
If they are, from your perspective, free to form as they will, why are you unable to choose as you will?
In the end, a human brain trying to study itself is like a fingertip trying to touch itself.
"When I think about you, I touch myself..." - Divynals.
A human brain trying to study itself is like a fingertip trying to touch touch.
The dimension we most trust and work in by default is itself a derived artifact, to which we cannot really use that dimension to understand the dimension it's derived from.
I'd say as much as you want to stay with what you trust, it's like a fingertip trying to touch itself.
-
Not necessarily supporting Royce's contention but for the uninformed:
McKenna's Theory of Novelty basically predicts that history happens in oscillations of novelty, which repeat the novel spikes of human history in intensifying and less intermittent moments until finally we reach a point where it's all novelty, all the time (that we supposedly passed now as late in his life McKenna attempted to bind his theory to the 2012 evolved consciousness hype).
Novelty, for those who don't know, has nothing to do with books, though novels can be novel: novelty is new, original, or unique, and in McKenna's mind, each instance of novelty surpassed the last as something which has truly never happened before (even in Omniversal repetition).
Like the Dunyain - always new.
Seems a failure point to me - to destroy our capacity to predict is basically destroying our main skill. Rendering us back to moment to moment animal reactionism.
-
Actually, McKenna used (semi-)complex algorithms and the I Ching (specifically the King Wen Sequence) to derive Timewave Zero Theory.
McKenna died in 2000 and was predicting all kinds of novel peaks after his death.
-
If the accelerated pace of tech and scientific progress continues(and maybe speeds up more and more?) I think we will push for more
and more novelty, and what that leads to, no one knows.
I think it is hard to predict what humans have in store in years to come. Annihilation?, VR?, cyborgs maybe?
That we constantly push for novelty, is in my mind hard to argue against.
-
Cyborgs definitely.
We'll do pretty much anything to save our lives. Brain implants, pacemakers, dialysis, oxygen tanks, artificial organs; not to mention, any tool or art, which changes our neural signatures - for instance, if an individual uses a walking stick for the blind, it takes about ten minutes to show up obviously on brain imaging instruments.
As for the rest, who knows... Another thread perhaps :).
Curiosity seems to be a quintessentially human quality. Novelty would be inevitable.
-
As for the rest, who knows... Another thread perhaps :).
Sounds like a good idea:) The "what comes after novelty" thread:)
We can make that happen.
-
does eternal recurrence count as an "idea"?
-
Like in the Platonic sense, solo?
-
I think it's an interesting idea. Not much more than that.
I'm also a believer in Block Universe Theory. I think everything was always going to happen and already has happened. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have no free will (though I kind of doubt we do). But I do think that reality/existence/the uni and/or omniverse is timeless. It is One Eternal Thing. It always has been, always was, and always will be. It also has infinite variation...because the concept of Infinity exists, it means Infinity does exist. Thus, reality and its variations (the Omniverse).
I recall reading of a way this allows for free will - I may have mentioned it to you. All the Many Worlds Universes have been produced as part of the Block Multiverse, their future and past extant.
All consciousness does is move like a train through the universes based on our choices, experiencing events that are waiting for it. So the only thing really subject to linear time is consciousness.
-
Infinite variation sounds as horrific, terrorfying and disgusting as one might think it angelic.
Infinite variation would sure lead to some quite amazing hells on earth.
-
Infinite variation sounds as horrific, terrorfying and disgusting as one might think it angelic.
Infinite variation would sure lead to some quite amazing hells on earth.
The infinite variation, presumably a result of Many Worlds, seems odd under any naturalism that accepts all human action can ultimately be determined by the movement of elementary particles/waves.
As I recall the example of this absurdity was a concert in which the performer does something ridiculous (masturbating, break dancing, etc) but no one in the audience reacts negatively. In fact there would have to be a world where the audience acts as if the performer actually played the piece?
Or can we rule out absurd worlds somehow?
-
Infinite variation sounds as horrific, terrorfying and disgusting as one might think it angelic.
Infinite variation would sure lead to some quite amazing hells on earth.
The infinite variation, presumably a result of Many Worlds, seems odd under any naturalism that accepts all human action can ultimately be determined by the movement of elementary particles/waves.
Why? The oddness only occurs when we try to place our own frame-of-reference on the subject, just as what happened with Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Old World, the Solar System, the Milky Way, etc. We have a tendency to sell reality short so that it fits into our realm of relative comfort. History has continuously shown us that this isn't true, and if anything, the nature of reality is far broader than we natively anticipate. It's always bigger, more complicated, and more humbling.
-
Fair point, Sci. Is water going to occasionaly flow uphill?
One of my pet fiction ideas is parrallel worlds but not an infinite amount but a number of them and it varies - sometimes the paraellel worlds merge averaging out the difference between the two (this was going to be the reason for spontanious combustion sometimes - sometimes someone is dead in one world, so when they merge with one where they live - poof!). And sometimes they split, becoming a copy but with a change in it. I had the idea for villains who wanted to merge them all into one, one set way for everything to exist ever, no variance - just one world.
Oh, and it was going to have a 'magic' system that relied on remerging worlds just locally as was convenient to the desired effect - what to burn an area? Merg part of the world with a world that is on fire in that area. Clearly such magic is not 'on demand' as you need the right event occuring elsewhere - but I think that'd lead to interesting literary effects and a story would benefit from it (even as it does not easily benefit a character in the story!).
-
Fair point, Sci. Is water going to occasionaly flow uphill?
I don't think so, because that would break other laws. I suppose the marco-level wiring of neurons might preclude absurd worlds, merely allowing for the thought of such bizarre activity to enter the mind but not actually altering the wiring of the brain.
I suppose once we get to a world that has concert halls, the state of the brain makes conception of such absurdity possible without actually allowing for such actions?
Why? The oddness only occurs when we try to place our own frame-of-reference on the subject, just as what happened with Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Old World, the Solar System, the Milky Way, etc. We have a tendency to sell reality short so that it fits into our realm of relative comfort. History has continuously shown us that this isn't true, and if anything, the nature of reality is far broader than we natively anticipate. It's always bigger, more complicated, and more humbling.
Well, to be clear I'm not 100% sure these absurd worlds have to exist. I'd assume evolution might rule out some of this kind of thing?
But assuming that there must be absurd events in some worlds, there would also be worlds where the absurdity is only noticed (or is observed) by a few people.
I recall a story based around the King in Yellow, the Lovecraftian play that drives people mad. Imagine a mundane version of such a thing, where part of the cast murders another part of the cast.
Imagine a world where only half the audience in each subsequent viewing of the event cares that this happened. It would appear to be supernatural but was in fact just a matter of being in the "wrong" world.
-
Oh my...you guys/gals... my head hurts from reading this. This forum has so many mindboggling topics and discussions. And most of the time i can't even begin to formulate answers to questions posed by you...it's kind of frustrating. Maybe i'm just too dumb for this forum after all.
Anyway...
My contribution to this thread is most likely also not very helpful. But i do have to say that Nietsche might have been a brilliant thinker...but i still do not buy this theory. For one, the mathematical argument is not wrong but i guess it does not support his apocalyptic conclusion 100%.
Auriga is right that if you accept A) and B) the probability that our exact timeline will repeat itself is 1, but i don't think it means that it will repeat itself everytime. So you might have a timeline where we will "go through the motions" again, but not all the time and in every "turn of the wheel", so to speak. So thereofre i guess you can look forward to other "play-outs" of our universe and maybe even your life ;)
-
Maybe i'm just too dumb for this forum after all.
I doubt that very much. Just as an observation -> To even try and engage with these topics requires a certain mental fortitude and ability.
It's not even arrogant, just the way things are. Most minds will retreat from this kind of dialogue.
And then there are bastards like me who just jump in. (I've never read Nieztche...shhhhhhhhhhh! ;) )
-
Maybe i'm just too dumb for this forum after all.
Lol. Well, at least you don`t babble about psychedelics in every thread out there like I do ;D
I am going to quit doing that, I promise :P
And then there are bastards like me who just jump in. (I've never read Nieztche...shhhhhhhhhhh! ;) )
LOL!
-
Fair point, Sci. Is water going to occasionaly flow uphill?
I don't think so, because that would break other laws. I suppose the marco-level wiring of neurons might preclude absurd worlds, merely allowing for the thought of such bizarre activity to enter the mind but not actually altering the wiring of the brain.
I suppose once we get to a world that has concert halls, the state of the brain makes conception of such absurdity possible without actually allowing for such actions?
Yup. It can dream of things that cannot be.
It can dream of things it cannot be.