I’m not sure what you want to know. I think the concept is very concise and it’s implications are evident.
Here’s the topic I made where I first stumbled upon it: Time and Life
And here’s a Wikipedia link on the issue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
All I could really do is answer to my beliefs.
I felt your OP had ref to Nietzche, but how does awareness tie into it?
From the Wiki page: The basic premise proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is greater than zero. If either time or space is infinite, then mathematics tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.
I’m not trying to reference Nietzsche here, I am referencing eternal recurrence, which as the Wiki shows, has been around long before Nietzsche. I believe time/space is infinite, and from this, stems the belief that eternal recurrence is true.
As for awareness, the relevance of awareness is that this is what one experiences. When we’re talking of suicide, someone’s trying to stop the experience of something. I believe there’s a reasonable chance that our awareness will arise in different states than our current selves, as in, not humans. Therefore, when one commits suicide, they’re trading their current state in for an unknown state of awareness. Hence a bet - That the next state is preferable.
So you’ll only ever have something, not nothing. If anyone’s hoping to get away from existence via suicide, I believe they’re sorely mistaken in their effort.
Upon reading your thoughts strangely, it. Is as if you were reading my mind or vica versa. This is exactly the argument which crossed my mind. Specifically, your thought that awareness is, and not isn't. So if one would follow up on this, the suicide really can't die, because~ even if, another recurrance of his exact mental content comes up, the temporal space between one and another recurrence is non existent.
In temporal determination,the 2nd theory of relativity postsribes that as events approach a quantitative 0 they tend to approach absolute nothingness, materially speaking. Ontologically, time is a formal arrangement, where the content is filled as a matter of perpective.It seems that this is saying the same thing. So is it conceivable that death (not physical death) is impossible, resulting in an infinite series of lives? This seems to be a reasonable consclusion of this scenario. But asking what the quality of that content is, begs a different scenario.,like a cosmic mandala, where the center enimates toward the periphery. The farther away from the center, the more differentiated the contents are.
In the East, the saying is, that those that succeed in attaining Sartori, the ego becomes totally cosmic. further, this attainment has to be a matter of will, not of constraint. In such a case, there is no rebirth, no differentiation of content.
This seems to be a different sort of suicide, and t some seers say that one must die, to be born again. Is this off the mark? Or is this pretty much what is implied here? The coveat here is: letting go must be a joyful not a fearful experience. The attachment of letting go must not even be the the I (or You) that's attached to this process. The fear in the samsara must be relinquished, so that the Nirvana can be attined.
This is why it is said of Nirvana, for some it could be millions of reincarnations,for the very very very very very very few----it takes only 1 lifetime. There is an answer to this:::
This rare soul is the avatar, who comes back from Nirvana to do service,and to enlighten.
Sorry if misinterpret what you say, you draw upon things that are very foreign to me. I’m not well read. 
Yep, we’re in agreement here.
Yep, time being a human distinction.
Yep.
Well, I believe in an infinite universe there is no middle or periphery, but your idea makes sense to me if I say the movement goes back and fourth from middle to periphery.
And yeah, you cycle through all the different states.
If you’re saying the ego sees itself in all, then I can understand. If you’re saying that if the ego attains Sartori, it can remember all its states, it’s a struggle for me to believe that.
I’ve thought about technology that could track ‘you’ on your path through the universe, and when you became aware once more, be able to inform you of your past. The time the technology would have to survive for is likely incomprehensible, which means it’s unlikely. Easier to hope for technology that can reincarnate you, I suppose.
Yep, one must die to experience the next state.
This isn’t necessary based on my belief. You’ll go along the path, regardless of how your life ended.
Exactly. Because You wish always to be you. The enlightened being, can let go this, or any other you.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever been somewhere, where you felt ill at ease, perhaps a stranger in a party of people, where you knew no one? And everyone seemed a stranger, a completely different environment?
I mean really different. And let’s say that place was a prison for the hard core. Now this is only a suppose. And let’s say, you saw yourself as one who was thrown in to a wrong place, like a lamb amongst lions. Or the people were dangerously hard core, and you could just smile at them looking innocent. You couldn’t think of a way to be with them.
So the thought occurred to you, that if you were to survive in this environment, you’d have to change, not be like them, but act as though you were.(Sartre calls this acting in bad faith)
So let’s suppose after being like this for years, your act becomes you. Not that some hard core recognizes your duplicity, but that you forgot how to act the other way, and now this is all You know.
Well I have met some super cool people, who basically , every time they get up, they have to re-assemble themselves, into a way of acting (a role) to suit that day’s social requirements.
Now they are old on their deathbed. They will be relieved, that they won’t have to reassemble themselves any longer. They in fact, wish to forget.
This is the kind of idea of christ’s saying you must first die to be reborn. The ego is the content of all the assemblages of all the different ways of being in this world.
Most people want to be only one way.through generations. They can not be any other way. They will be afraid to let go, because they will have to disassemble that being, at the last hour. And they find they can’t, or don’t want to, because might as well stay that way forever. So if you believe that, you don’t disassemble or reassemble anything, you are always that. Always living. In fear of becoming and unbecoming. This is kind of what I meant$
Thanks for sharing that. It rings of truth.
Your belief in a unitary movement of life is just a groundless belief, lacking any certainty. You have cleverly rationalized what the teachers and books have taught you. Your beliefs are the result of blind acceptance of authority, all secondhand stuff. You are not separate from your beliefs. When your precious beliefs and illusions come to an end, you come to an end. Your talking is nothing more than the response to each other’s frustrations, which you are expressing through questions, logical arguments, and other mentations.
Who are you talking to joe ,obe, or both?
I think I am finally getting the hang of it.
Seconded.
The discussion between you is interesting, but so far I don’t think you’ve gone far enough to really justify your positions. Finishedman puts the point harshly, but that doesn’t mean his objections aren’t worth answering.
You have said that ‘I believe time/space is infinite, and from this, stems the belief that eternal recurrence is true.’ . Let’s assume that space and time is infinite (I think it’s just an assumption, I don’t think we know either way): this probably guarantees the re-occurrence of things which are exactly like us at some point in the extremely distant future.
However, it still doesn’t guarantee that there will be any relation between us and anything else that comes after us or before us.
→ “Once we die, given enough time, whatever ‘we’ are, will be aware once more”
In my view, what ‘I’ am is dependent on everything about me. From the parents I had to the milkshake I drank in McDonalds yesterday, it’s all a part of me. Without this, there is no meaningful use of the word ‘I’ or ‘me’. Death breaks the chain, thus what ‘I’ am ceases to be. Even if, in some distance universe in some future, there exists a person who is exactly like me, who had identical parents and drank an identically delicious strawberry milkshake in McDonalds the da before he sat down to write on a website called ILP at a date he called 25 May 2013, he still wouldn’t be related to ‘me’ because there would be no causal chain to connect us. As Finishedman put it: 'When your precious beliefs and illusions come to an end, you come to an end".
Thus I am joining Finishedman as a skeptic to your (Joe’s, mainly) argument about awareness re-occuring.
Monkey: and may I be permitted to cally you as such? Of course there is absolutely no lapse of good faith between us, I presume to know you better, for You to even think that. A heated discussion on matters, even if it results in no agreement, wither the tone, or the feelings develop, is of no consequence.
On the matter at hand. The thing is about absolute proof for any argument rests on the premise,and I am talking about bina-fide empirically based arguments augmenting an ontological approach, Is, that since Leibnitz, things have not only changed quantitaverly, but qualitatively.
Sure, the supposition that perhaps a concept of an infinite universe, is somewhat presupposed, and maybe nothing can be said of the extent and the duration of the universe, but, something has already become koiwn of the universe, the other way::::the Hubble telescope has reached into further areas of space then at any other time in history, and educated hyporhesis/havs been developed about the origin and the start up, of the universe.
The big bang is ipretty much in consensus now, as being the most likely explanation, and Einsteins 2nd theory added to this suggests, that space time is curved. (He curved space time and the big bang suggest that they are related. Space/time or spacetime is one concept insted of two. Just like all the other dualities. In addition, as we get closer , and I think it has to do with Plank, to absolute 0 in time, as fars as the big bang is concerend, the. Shorteening time becomes as an apprehendable concept. In fact, according, again to the second law, .if, we get incrementelly so close to the big bang, using a increasingly complex functions, things will probably break down into unsupportable basis of the epistomological sort. The infinitessimallity would approach total timelessness, with space, approaching C extension. This hypothetically is the total collapse of the universe.
At this point there is absolutely no time,or space.. However, the question of the subjectivity/objectivity of time also becomes a redundent question, and this is where this OPbis going, and this is where it starts. This is what's meant by the curviture of the spacetime of the universe, you end uo, where you start.
Now,if you want tobhold that this too, is debatable, of an unsopportable content, then both: epistemologycal assertions and ontological definitions become totally uselesss.
At this point there is still something which can be thought : imagine the unthinkable: so don't think. For a moment, become pre conscious,close your eyes ears, and don't think. So what is this state like? Well this state is kind of like the preconscious stateand nothing exists exists absolutely, and absolutely nothing exists..
In fact that nothingness doesent exist as a concept because thought of preception doesent exist, and this can't be verified. (This is an absolutely singular starting point, because all knowledge is based on sharing of singular,albeit, similar data)
Noiw since we think we kniow something, anyhow, that what we know "exists", we think of as impossible that it would not. nothing And that is right! Nothingness does exist, and it is the void , or the embededness of the possibility of necoming. This is absolutely certain, not only definitionally.
So having gotten this far, the questions of the self, eternal return, identity, and certainty, follow with absolute certainty, becasue even if the universe is noit absolutely infinite. s is supposed, its curviture makes it absolutely certain, that it will recur infinitely, because you go along the circle infinitely: thinking why this is infinite::::however it is such a huge circle,i the line of the curviture. Is almost absolutely straight, that the curviture becomes undetectible to the point approaching absolute. Zero degrees. (It’s a becoming ((of the awareness of the curviture as a possibility)
As soon as it approaches an absolute (within infinitessimaly degrees of spacetime curviture), it collapses, and that is true of stars, atom bombs, everything with a treshold beyind which the current constitution can not hold it in integrity.
The imeme. Works similarly, because it is nothing but a mirror of what it perceives. It's knowledge of it's self as an absolute being, is always limited by doubt. The fact that the imeme icontains the absolute subjectively, as a mirror of that process, is a very difficult idea, but again it takes time, a lot of time to approach this, before, having a feeling for it,(the collapse) becausw we can never absolutely know it, It can never reveal itself to itself,because it is done through us. It is Absolute Being, God is within, and It absolutely re-occurs all the time, because of this doubt to its absolute certainty. The fact that Being is manifested through Essentially though our. Existence, makes it look like our self knowledge as a hall of mirrors. But in fact we refelct off if each other through our individual existence the absolute Being, which in Essentially an absolute totally non Existent Being in an Absolute void of totally diminished (to absolut 0) Being. It has to exist, (in us) , by absolute certainty.
Nevertheless, each individual by virtue of his genetic structure is unparalleled, unprecedented and unrepeatable.
obe, I prefer ‘brevel’ to ‘monkey’ but I don’t care a very great deal either way.
Well, this is far from established. I’m not a scientist and don’t claim to be an expert, but I no enough to know that there is disagreement in the field as to whether the Universe cycles infinitely or not. Nevermind that, though, as I was arguing from the position that even if you accept that the universe re-occurs infinitely, you still don’t get to the conclusion that whatever ‘I’ am will reoccur. The strongest conclusion you can possibly form is that something which is identical to what I am will reoccur, which is very different.
Also note that, as a conclusion, it somewhat undermines the OP, which says that suicide is a ‘gamble’. Because, given the theory in hand, something exactly like me will reoccur sometime anyway, indeed this will happen an infinite number of times. Ergo there is no gamble whatsoever - my re-occurance is definite.
What Joe seems to be talking about is the ‘transference’ of something which constitutes ‘me’ to other things/places after death. However, it remains unstated exactly what will be transferred, how it will be transferred, and what the rational basis for believing in this transference is.
Ok but what then of the possibility of parallel universed? Your being may exist in an array of simoltinuity, giving you only an impression in (this) existence?
Brevel: thanks for your reply, and I will try to answer You point by point: let's just put the idea of the curvature of the universe on the back burner, .but with the condition, that the argument for the eternal recurrence of the universe doesn't dispose with the eternal recurrence of the singular (I) I suggest, on the contrary, that the I has to recur as well, because it is part of the universe.
Now if the universe is not of a cyclical, eternally recurring process, then, what position does the I find itself within? (Since it's part of the universe) remember I am arguing if, and I don't necessarily believe this.
Then both the I, and the universe, as Tentative suggests, are a one time deal, and renews the call to ask where everything came from, puts god on edge, and science on notice of a precipitous problem with validation. The I has to come from, as Tentative himself suggests, and according to his argument, awareness itself has to come from somewhere. This suggests a de construction to a linear argument, whereas the cyclical description is based on a functional argument.
There are concerns within linear arguments and answered were satisfactory,after newton got hit in the head by an apple, but things have changed. We simply cannot call a line absolutely straight any more.
The description of an eternal universe has been changed from "eternal" the way we used to understand it as hung on a peg of temporal continuity, but in that sense both You and Tentative are right, there is no eternity in that sense.
The new eternity is repetitious, parallel, cyclical.
It’s repetition , its eternal return, is one embedded in a quantum immanence, a timeless eternity, if you can conceive that concept. Everything that ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen is happening this very instant. The instant is that undefinable that is creating and destroying simultaneously, there is no thought, existence in that instant, only the Essence of a Being.
Can you wee where this is going? We are in agreement but with differing descriptions. By the time you receive this communication, this second will seemed to have evaporated into before/after. This is why the doubt (starting grossly with Descart, set limits to understanding ontology)
I firmly believe this and this is why suicide is superfluous, and tentative is right in asserting that we just slip into another from of awareness. There are no breaks (literally and figuratively) in this life of the next, it's a continuum.
Now the last question you pose about the ego, well that's up to you, here the determinism/free will process will dictate as to the continuous constitution of your ego.
Uhmmmm, and excatly how would you know?