Eternal Recurrence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Here I present my evidence for the eternal recurrence of the same, that effectively is a hypothesis capable of explaining why everything and anything exists. First I will present two premises that has to be accepted as true for the conclusions to be valid:

Premise # 1: It as a given that the Universe exists, and that its properties necessarily must meet the premises that our existence rests upon. The reasoning for this is obvious: If the fundamental physical forces and constants hadn’t been exactly the way they are, we hadn’t existed, hence we couldn’t have observed the properties that made our existence impossible in such a hypothetical universe. That the Universe and the Earth has exactly perfect, and seemingly “fine-tuned”, properties for us to exist therefore is nothing but reasonable and downright necessary.

Premise # 2: Consciousness is a consequence of physical existence. The Universe consists of a large amount of energy/matter that to any given moment is in a certain condition. The flow between different conditions is labelled with the term ‘time’. Consciousness arises as a consequence of energy/matter arranging itself in a certain condition/pattern in a limited amount of time. Consciousness isn’t more mystical than the sum of an individual’s senses and cognitive abilities/information processing. Hence, consciousness is a natural result of an advanced sensory apparatus and an advanced brain.

Conclusion # 1: If the Universe we live in is part of an everlasting cycle, the exact same universe will one time have to manifest again. Granted that consciousness is nothing more than the sum of the organism’s body, your consciousness/life will sooner or later have to be repeated in the exact same world history.

Conclusion # 2: If, on the other hand, our Universe isn’t part of an everlasting cycle, but quite the contrary is a phenomenon that has spontaneously arisen from nothing, it would have to mean that something/everything can spontaneously arise from nothing. Therefore other universes can also arise whenever “they like”, and the probability for another universe that has the exact same properties/physical laws as ours, to never arise, given that it has an infinite amount of time to arise again, must therefore equal zero.

Final conclusion: It seems very unlikely that none of the preceding conclusions are correct. Therefore, one must assume that the hypothesis of the eternal recurrence really is true.

Consequences of the eternal recurrence of the same: If the eternal recurrence is real, which the arguments above suggests it is, it means that every single conscious creature for ever will have to experience its existence as an endless, uninterrupted stream of being. The time it takes from the death of an individual being to the next time it incarnates, whether it is billions, quadrillions or a googolplex number of years, can neither way be experienced by that individual, since its consciousness doesn’t exist in the timespan between two incarnations.

Therefore, at the death of ones body, one wont be able to experience the enourmous span of time that lies between death and rebirth, and also wont have a clear understanding of time from the first unconscious or weakly conscious years as a baby, but will rather return to the first conscious moment of ones life.
Nothing can be remembered from the previous life, since memories are stored in the brain, and the brain and its consciousness is - as stated earlier - fragmented in the time between two incarnations.

2

“Neverhuman”, I suppose?
( iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=131773 ) :wink:

Like I said on the other forum, what you conclude here (and there) is much the same as what I have concluded to be the most logical answer to the problem.

If time is infinite, and an individual is defined as e.g. the structure of his mind, then this structure will re-occur an infinite amount of times. Whether this specific universe will exist forever is a question, though. But if this universe is just one of infinitely many in a multiverse (or such), then sooner or later, a universe identical to this will re-appear. (I personally believe that some sort of infinity exist on one level or another in reality).

The question then of course, is whether a structure identical to e.g. me will be me (i.e. whether I will experience the life of that structure). If we are not defined by the matter that we consist of (the matter is continually changing, so we are probably not), then I don’t see any other solution than us being defined by our structure (e.g. our brain pattern).

3

your conciousness is the universe

your beliefs and your unknowns

zero

the universe

a thought a universe
no thought-a universe

what else is there
-the universe

no thought-the universe

I think therefore I am the universe

I think I am not the universe-the universe

add it up, play around with it,I have it, you don’t,who cares-the universe

compliment- “the universe”

are you in or out man,(be)cause whether you like it or (not), you’re (in) (It)

           "{  [stop]   ([([(opp[o]site)])])   (stop)  }"

have fun-(god)-god-(peace)-out

4

A simpler and just as effective argument:

Time is infinite but matter and compositions of matter finite, therefore there is a set number of compositions of matter possible, therefore compositions will begin to repeat themselves and given probability, all compositions will eventually repeat. Repeat argument times infinite.

It’s quite disturbing to think that someone identical to me will or has sat in this very room at this very time typing this very message feeling the very thing I’m feeling at some point in history.

5

Yes it is.

6

But it’s not a question of “someone identical to you”, as there is no you in the first place - no identity. It is rather that the Heraclitean river forms a circle. As Deleuze says: “The same does not recur, it is just the recurrence which is the same of that which becomes.” [Deleuze, “Nietzsche”.] There is only one ring of recurrence, and this is identical to itself - it is itself.

7

This is giving me the creeps. I’m with you there.

But, then again, something seems strange about this. If we take time to be infinite and matter to be finite, as you said, I would agree that infinite time would allow all those finite things within it more than enough time to engage in what’s basically a finite amount of combinations. That makes sense, however hard it is to get one’s mind around.

But then I come to a problem. It would seem that our universe is expanding, and not only that, but the rate of expansion seems to be increasing, so that in time things become further and further apart. Now gravity is the only force, as far as I know, that can still function over limitless distance, but eventually the increasing speed of expansion will overtake the gravity’s ability to bring these finite elements together.

So while there’s infinite time for finite things to engage in finite combinations, nature, it would seem, has a mechanism to disallow that. Everything, if what they say about expansion is true, will soon be too far apart from anything else to interact anymore.

So it would seem that many, but not all, combinations are likely to be a solitary occurrence.

This doesn’t make me feel a whole lot better, but there’s no getting around an argument like that, as far as I can tell. Please, by all means, do your best to try. I’m getting uncomfortable here.

8

Well, Socrates, one hypothesis is that the universe wont expand until it pulls apart but will be like a rubber band - i.e. it will pull to a certain extent, until it collapses back in upon itself. This collapse could possibly be the cause of the big bang, causing everything to go in a circle.

9

But hasn’t the probability of that outcome been decreased?
Science has found out that the universe is more likely to expand forever, than to stop expanding and collapsing.

But then again, this universe might be only one of many, as I said in my post above here. :slight_smile:

10

The expansion of the universe is part of the eternal recurrence: it is actually a re-expansion, and there has never been an original “first expansion” (rather, this re-expansion is the original form of the expansion).

Though Nietzsche spoke of “infinite time”, I think he realised that this is as nonsensical as “infinite space” - or anything infinite, for that matter. The length of a circle is not infinite, and yet it does not have a beginning or end in length.

11

Yeah, I can see your point. But, at least as far as hard science goes, there’s really no way to confirm that this expansion is one in many. At time zero physics meets with a singularity, a black box effect that neither allows you to determine exactly what happened at t=0 or before.

Philosophically the idea is attractive, but then we come into a debate over the Aristotelian unmoved mover. I suppose it’s just one of those things we can go in circles about. One of those conundrums they always talk about. Like a modern day Zeno or something.

Multiverse theories, and theories of branes slapping together, seem to point to possibilities, but that’s more in the realm of metaphysics than science. No shame in that though. This is the ILP board, after all.

12

Let’s not forget that James Joyce once compared the descent of a newly shed feather to the tranquility achieved in between farts from Uncle Reemis after he’s had some beans and beer.

13

Excellent point, Gobbo. Tell me: are all your thousands of posts this full of promise? I should do a search! Never mind all the books, am I right?

14

harsh comments from expressionless people

15

What posts do you refer to? I mainly agree with the logic of “eternal recurrence”, but it is still important to look at all ideas with critical eyes. This is philosophy and not religion, right? :wink:

16

This eternal recurrence makes sense to me, but sounds like fantasy. I am a pragmatist so this is hard for me to really believe. Every single premise that I have heard may or may not be true, and most of them are illogical.

Who is to say that space and time are infinite and that matter and the composition of it isnt? That to me sounds absurd with no logical background supporting it. And even if it was true, and that these compositions had to repeat themselves, that doesnt necesarily mean that everything is the same all over again. Look at it logically from what we can see as human beings. All we see is change, so to say that change goes back to re-change is downright hollow. I can very well say that eternal recurrence exists because the world is made out of a rock and get away with it.

All these premises and conclusions are interesting but its such an erratic idea that honestly doesn’t show many undeniable variables.

17

Premise: All events are eternally recurring.
Premise: We have no memory (and hence no data apart from speculation) of such eternal recurrence.
Therefore: There is no concrete difference between a world that manifests in such a manner (eternal recurrence) and one that does not.

In other words (and with all respect) - Who cares?

18

Hah! Thats exactly what I was thinking in my head.

19

That is not what the eternal recurrence says. It says that space and “matter” - energy - (space is understood as a function of energy) are finite and that time is “infinite”, i.e., that change never stops. If the whole is changing, then this change can never come to a halt, as there is nothing besides the whole to influence it. So premise I is that change is endless. Now endless change may mean two things: that events are forever new or that they are not. If the former, then we can conceive of this world as a mathematical straight line, as far as length is concerned at least: both the future and the past stretch out endlessly, and they never meet. If the latter, then we can conceive of this world as a circle: the future is the past and vice versa. The former presupposes that there is an “infinite amount” of energy, whereas the latter presupposes a finite amount of energy. I think “infinite amount” is a self-contradiction, so I think the same events must recur again and again.

20

If we do live in an infinite universe (provided it oscillates) then I agree that the exact same set of occurrences will be repeated. Still, it wouldn’t be “you” again due to your unique spacio-temporal location, so it is not recurrence in the strict sense.