Eternal Recurrence

"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; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?.. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? "
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

The Physics:

  1. The matter in the universe is accelerating away from the origin of the universe’s creation at an exponential rate.
  2. When matter reaches the speed of light, it is converted into energy (or light itself) and ceases to be matter.
  3. Since matter is accelerating exponentially, it will eventually reach the speed of light and convert into light itself.

    Relativity Variant:

    4a. Since all light moves at the same velocity in a vacuum (Einstein’s theory of relativity), the light in the universe would have no reference point within the universe to compare its position to after all matter has converted into light. It would be a super-posed 0-dimensional point of singularity.
    5a. From this 0-dimensional point of singularity, the creation of a subsequent universe emerges; another “Big Bang”.

Dark Energy Variant:
4b. Euclidean space is maintained by dark energy, and dark energy is a residue that matter leaves behind after the expenditure of energy.
5b. After all the matter in the universe has converted to energy, the dark energy (which is really just quanta of energy that is too minuscule to interact with matter other than through gravity) would no longer be maintained. Hence, Euclidean space would no longer exist, and the universe would be a 0-dimensional point of singularity.

  1. From this 0-dimensional point of singularity, the creation of a subsequent universe emerges; another “Big Bang”. This is because the 0-dimensional point is unstable (assuming that different photons were traveling in different directions at the moment that the last particle of matter converted into energy).

  2. Another “big bang” results, and the creation of a new universe.

  3. Existence is stuck in an infinite oscillation where a new universe is created after the destruction of a previous universe.

    The Philosophy:

    Assuming that there is “something” in existence right now, then there can never be “nothing” in existence, but there must always be “something”. Even if the “something” was destroyed, the residue of its destruction would still be “something”.
    Since time is infinite, then a particular arrangement of the universe has the probability of occurring more than once. Eventually (after a tremendously long time), a state of the universe that has already occurred will occur again. Since time is infinite, it is not a problem of how long it takes for this replica to occur. However minuscule the probabilities of of this “replica universe” occurring are, the very fact that it has a probability of occurring means that it will occur eventually, given that time is infinite.

Not only will this “replica universe” occur, it will occur an infinite number of times.
Indeed, all possible scenarios of all possible universes will occur an infinite number of times.

So you will have to live this life again, and again an infinite number of times with nothing changed or different. You might speculate that this implies that there will “eventually occur” a universe where you won the lottery last night or some other fortunate turn of affairs - but these universes, you will never experience, because on some fundamental level, that “you” who won the lottery last night is somehow different from the “you” that you are right now.

So you will be stuck living the same exact life repeatedly, over and over again. Every choice you make right now is not just for right now, the choice is being made for all eternity.

Just out of interest… where did the physics come from?

Given infinite time and combinations, you’ll also live an infinite number of different lives, over and over again. The very fact that anything has a probability of occurring means that it will occur eventually, given that time is infinite.

So don’t sweat it. Or, taking Schopenhauer’s point of suffering massively outweighing pleasure, brace yourself. And when you wake up surrounded by supermodels with your concept album topping charts on four continents, remember that this is one of the high points. :stuck_out_tongue:

Like, are you saying that you want references to the physics? Or are you wondering why the physics were necessary?

But these “different lives” wouldn’t be “us” on some fundamental level (whatever variance in fundamental structure that allowed for the different life to occur), and therefore, they wouldn’t truly be “us”.

Even if there was the smallest flaw or imperfection in a replication of our universe, even if one atom in the corner of a distant galaxy were off by 1 nanometer from where it is right now, then the replica universe would be off-synch with our universe - our “mind’s eye” that is experiencing life right now would not be the same “mind’s eye” in the alternate-self that is living in that flawed replica of our universe.

In order for the “us”, the experiencer, to exist again - and not just be some other experiencer that is similar to us - every minuscule detail must match in the replica universe.

I wasn’t aware that physics had got so far in the last few days. You appear to have solved a few things that have been baffling some top scientists for a good few decades. Some of it to the untrained eye looks like rubbish, even. So yes, references would be lovely, to get up to speed.

I’ll settle for a sloppier definition of “us” if it gets me the supermodels.

I will be, or I already am? How would I know the difference?

…and how come Sonny & Cher’s “I Got You Babe” keeps waking me up in the morning? :confused:

That gets boring after a while.

PN, is your point to cross reference Nietzsche with the scholarly scientist? I’m sure you’ve read enough of N to know this is a little inappropriate.

The eternal recurrence doesn’t have much to do with a cyclical big-bang model of the universe: even if it wasn’t just a thought experiment, there would be no memory cross-over from a previous identical life without changing the nature of the 2nd life onwards and therefore destablising the whole concept.

The Sonny & Cher comment is funny though, Oughtist :stuck_out_tongue:

the eternal recurrence has nothing to do with physics

nothing at all

it’s an affirmation, not a speculation

to N, it was the highest affirmation of life, of existence

to will nothing but the present, and only the present - all and everything that is the present, and nothing besides

this is an affirmation and not a speculation why? because it is always the present, and nothing besides. all else is in constant flux

Kierkegaard called this same general principle ‘purity of heart,’ which is to ‘will one thing’ - Either/Or, you affirm the present, or you do not - Kierkegaard invoked God as well, but that’s another story

even for Nietzsche, however, this has spiritual significance as well, this idea of the ER–love and fate and all that–the love part is particularly important (and easy to overlook), as this purity of love importantly implies an utter lack of existential fear, and becomes that tremendous courage about which Nietzsche discusses at length in Zarathustra - but we have here yet another story

Peachy, nice OP. You present your argument well.

The problem that I have with it, though, is that you leave out an important detail that is needed to make the scenario of recurring realities work: there must be some thing, some factor which links one life in one reality to another life in another reality. For example, you bite the bullet a bit on this and claim that unless every single atom is exactly the same, and nothing is at all even a little different, then the reality is the “same” as the previous one, which it is identical to.

The problem with this view is that a) there is no way, in reality from any conceivable means or perspective (physically or consciously) that this knowledge could be established or maintained, and b) even if it were the case that some constant factor existed between realities which establishes a complete identity between them, this nullifies the concept of the reality “starting over” in a Big Bang.

One possible way around this I can see is that we can postulate the existence of an extra “dimension” or element of reality, perhaps a spiritual type of element, which does not get wiped out from one Big Bang to the next. God could satisfy this requirement, but I assume you are not making this claim. Or, maybe a dimension which does not change as the reality around it changes, becoming light and then recycling into another universe with the next Big Bang. Yet if this is the case, then this other dimension must be seen as the grounding or medium “ether” of existence for all of reality. In this case it must be composed of a certain type of energy which does not change (in that it must retain information so as to establish a link between one reality or life and a subsequent one which is identical to the previous, so that this Identity has any meaning at all) and does not recycle or get reset in the Big Bang.

The trouble with this is that reality is created by matter/energy. Spacetime does not exist without the presence of matter/energy. So this means that, if we make the above assumption about an ether-like level of reality able to retain or transmit required information to make the Eternal Recurrence idea successful, it must exist beyond normal spacetime and normal reality, and is composed of a different type of energy. Now, perhaps this is true, but scientifically or Physically we have no reason to suspect this. A belief in this type of other reality or dimension must be classified as religious, as there is no evidence or Physics backing it up.

Without such a permanent ether dimension, the Eternal Reality model you present, via Nietzschean ER, just makes no sense at all. It is meaningless. There is and can be no connection from one reality/universe to another. The Big Bang MUST wipe out everything, all matter/energy, and reset completely the “clock” or mechanisms of all that is. So, as Humean said above, it doesnt really matter even if everything is cycling in the way that you say, because there is no meaningful way of comparing one reality to a different one. You cannot compare one existence to the next after a new Big Bang, because even if we are to say that they end up being identical in their atomic or quantum configurations, this is of no significance whatsoever as this fact does not change any part of either of the realities themselves, it does not connect the realities in any way, and there is absolutely no way at all for anyone, even a God, to discern this fact – unless, that is, we assume the existence of the previously mentioned ether-like dimension, which is unchanging from one Big Bang to the next.

I see no way around this problem. Even if, in say 100000000000000000 years, another universe pops up that unfolds exactly as this one is, and deterministically “we” come back and live identical lives (just ignoring for now the severe problems with free will, consciousness and Determinism this raises), it does not matter one bit. It is not “you” or “me” in any way at all. Or rather, the next universe which is exactly the same as this one, except that I win the lottery, is just as much “me” again as the universe where I again do not win the lottery. Or, the universe where “I” end up being a different person. There is just no basis for comparison, and no meaning at all in the statement that the two lives/universes are “the same”.

By the way, I agree with Amor Fati here, that Nietzsche’s idea of the Return as laid out in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Will To Power is not a Physics/scientific presentation, or any sort of Theory. It is more of a mindset, a hypothetical thought experiment, a conscious state of mind. Zarathustra wills the Return not because he thinks that “he” will really come again; in fact, it is irrelevant whether the same reality comes again at all. Zarathustra wills the Return because it is in his nature to will all that exists as it is, again and for eternity. He wills backwards and into the future everything as it is.

Also Wittgenstein: “If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”

I think eternal recurrence would be awesome, if it were true. Like most visions of individualized afterlives, actually. And like most of those, it actually represents a justification for a clear system of living that when actualized isn’t all bad. I mean, I disagree with Nietzsche on certain issues because I feel he was short-sighted and missed the point, but those disagreements generally stem from more fundamental assumptions that the two of us don’t share.

But hey, I’ve lived an interesting life so far. Every indication is that it will continue to be pretty awesome. Why would I want anything else?

The point Nietzsche was trying to make was that it isnt how good or desirable or pleasurable your life is that matters. If you want your life to eternally return just because it is pleasurable to you so far, then you do not understand his meaning behind the eternal return.

Then educate me.

What I’m picking up, Xun, is a contentment with your life. Not a childish excitement that wishes it could experience it over and over again. The Last Man (in Nietzsche, and not the guy on this forum?) will want to live long because he has a pleasant life that he begrudgingly draws to a close once the end can no longer be delayed. He prepares to die during his life and lives it as a non-recurring experience.

The eternal return would apply to the life of childish severity and energy! With explosive outbursts and risk, unregretfully complimenting any suffering incurred along the way, one flies through life without a thought of doubt or death - he dies simply at the right time! Here, there is no hint of the mediocrity in pleasure, goodness or desirability. There is no fear towards staying alive, just deep immersion in fast tempo life. This, I imagine is TLM’s point?

Sure, Zhuangzi with the serial numbers filed off. I’m familiar. But I’m also critical of that sort of thought in Daoism, so, err, so what?

That was a great rebuttal Last man, as well as an excellent OP. I’m rather relieved that I won’t have to live this life eternally, that would be, unlike Xun’s case, dreadful. Yet, I can still apply Nietzsche’s brilliant thought in terms of my actions, living as if it were true, even if it isn’t the case metaphysically; Nietzsche’s idea has psychological power without any negative consequences like other ideas, such as God (which also has psychological power, but a lot of normative claims that are horrendous in the wrong scripture). That is of course unless I go around preaching eternal recurrence to people in dreadful situations or something . . . who knows, I’m sure there are plenty of catastrophic ways to misuse the idea, but I’m just not sociopathic enough to think of them.

One more point I’d like to contest in the OP, is that the argument assumes that the new reality would exist with the same physical laws of our current universe. If there is no universal administrator to oversee physical law and order, then one of the new universes can be made in such a way that it will, when it self-destructs, not yield another universe. And who knows, maybe that will be number three on the infinite-chain. Unless, light, creating a big-bang necessarily replicates the physical laws of our universe, poof.

Now the dreadful, really dreadful thought, as Tolstoy said, we all know it is true that other people are going to die, but we never apply this logic to ourselves. You may scream now.

Nietzsche did lay out a scientific justification for eternal Recurrence in one of his notebooks, however all this proves is why you should always read his notebooks with a degree of suspicion.

Excellent topic btw, I too love the theory of Eternal Recurrence as a justification for life as a theoretical one.

It strikes me as quite clearly having Eastern overtones, the eternal reaffirmation of the now as justification for life… Maybe that’s just me.

The Nietzsche quote in the original post indicates that “re-living the same life repeatedly for all eternity” it is indeed what he meant with his idea of Eternal Return.
The “willing to the present” is the outcome of having such a set of beliefs, but it is not the sole principle that Nietzsche’s ER implies.

Being opposed to ‘Backworlds’, when teaching the superman, Nietzsche would not have contradictively implied any other principle than “willing to the present”. The more that science diverges into the theoreticial, the more it strays into abstracted ideas that tend away from empirical earthly realities. Any serious or scientific suggestion that life may actually eternally recur is more than a brazen indulgence in Backworlds.

The thought experiment concerns imaginations in the present only, and only for the purpose of reference back to the reality of actual life that one would only feel further immersed in if the experiment produced an affirming result. Death is irrelevant, nevermind rebirth: of the universe or of the individual.

Simply put: Nietzsche was in some ways not strong enough even for his own philosophy. It is apparent from his own notes that he did intend to scientifically understand ER, and to derive it from Physics and logic. To justify it, abstractly. From reading EH we can see how Nietzsche believed that a writer ought to be unable to revisit his works, as they are a product of him and also beyond him; he acts partly as generator, but partly only as a filter, a medium through which ideas flow. Nietzsche confessed to being unable to revisit TSZ without breaking into tears and weeping uncontrollably. He was not “strong enough” for his own writing, because it was so profound - because, once outside of him and having taken form in reality, it gained a permanence which, by virtue of his intimate knowledge of its essence, he could not stand.

ER is intended as a mental method, similar to a thought experiment; it must be felt deeply, known completely and accepted unquestioningly. This leads to changes in thought and outlook on life. In truth, affirmation of ER is more of a by-product of the state of mind and awareness of a man, rather than the other way around. If a man truly affirms life in this world, the only one reality that exists, he will will the past and the future as it is and with his entire body and mind. In this way ER is more of a testing grounds, in Nietzsche’s own terms a “principle of selection”, but only after-the-fact . . . ER itself, if genuinely understood, is a result of the state of mind and awareness of the individual. If it needs to be dissected scientifically or justified logically or physically, it is not understood and remains only an abstraction, its essential reality hidden.

the interesting consequence of this thinking is that , you never grow in ones thinking , and that you could become AWARE of previous experiences , by repetition