|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: May 8, 2008 16:40
Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
universe begin at the death of this one?
It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
abstraction itself?
|
| |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: May 9, 2008 01:10
On 9 May, 00:40, "Scott H" wrote:
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
>
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
> universe begin at the death of this one?
>
> It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
> universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
> in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
> including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
> universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
> properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
> such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
>
> What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
> abstraction itself? ...
|
| Show full article (1.54Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: May 9, 2008 02:18
On May 9, 9:40 am, "Scott H" wrote:
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
You are half there :-), in as much as your relative mind kicked in
with the reference 'many times'
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
The "now" feeling is a sign of the wakening observer. To be or not to
be, was 'Shakies' way of trying to get the point across.
Once such reality has 'registered', the past and future dissapear,
like 'scotch mist'. What remains is a connection to your own creation.
You cause your own effect.>
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
> universe begin at the death of this one?
It doesnt. A better image is that of simultaniously existing planes
through which one 'travels' in a state of consciousness. We each
'visit' such states even befor we realize what is happening.Sometimes...
|
| Show full article (2.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: May 9, 2008 02:23
On May 9, 6:10 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:> On 9 May, 00:40, "Scott H" wrote:
>> abstraction itself?
>
> I wouldn't worry about it. Such an idea is beyond evidential support.
So is self awareness.Worry is spawned by the inherant 'need to know'.
> There is no means by which you can be aware of the other occurrences
> as the point is that the universe repeats itself exactly an
> unimaginable number of times.
On your basis, you have no means of knowing this is not the case...
> Why not try Hugh Everett III's many universes interpretation? At least
> that was invented to answer a scientific problem. The eternal
> recurrence is nothing more than a bit of fluff.
Oh the wonders of reality within such 'fluff.
That could be a modern version of the 'angels on a pinhead' koan :-)))
BOfL'
|
| Show full article (0.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: May 9, 2008 05:56
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:40:57 -0400, Scott H wrote:
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely
> many times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats
> itself.
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
You are looking for a concept here, correct?
Maybe the first place to start is here:
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it.
Hinduism, although a religion, introduced a more cyclical or circular
model of everything. Then Buddhism shoved this concept, then Taoism.
All of this as a way of saying that linearity has been challenged from
ancient times. Interestingly, to them this "now" feeling is not linear at
all. Now, it seems that some branches of theoretical physics
are taking a look at this.
So, 'reborn'. Off-spring is the parent reborn in non-exactitude. Can
there be such thing as an absolute exact copy of anything? Reborn may not
actually be entirely the same but rather entirely similar.
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: J JonesJ Jones Date: May 9, 2008 12:22
Scott H wrote:
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
>
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
> universe begin at the death of this one?
>
> It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
> universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
> in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
> including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
> universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
> properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
> such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
>
> What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
> abstraction itself? ...
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: May 9, 2008 15:45
On May 9, 10:23 am, "bigflet...@ gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:> On May 9, 6:10 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 May, 00:40, "Scott H" wrote:
>>> abstraction itself?
>
>> I wouldn't worry about it. Such an idea is beyond evidential support.
>
> So is self awareness.Worry is spawned by the inherant 'need to know'.
>
>> There is no means by which you can be aware of the other occurrences
>> as the point is that the universe repeats itself exactly an
>> unimaginable number of times.
>
> On your basis, you have no means of knowing this is not the case...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: May 9, 2008 19:46
"Scott H" wrote in message
news:zMqdnclC2PBAD77VnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@supernews.com...
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
Almost everything in the universe is the result of cyclic processes.
Especially higher forms of order such as life and intelligence.
So it would be logical to assume our universe is the result
of a cyclic process. Where the death of one universe leads
to the creation of another.
In fact, the cyclic model is becoming the state of the art.
It's a rather new idea by perhaps the two leading
cosmologists of the day, Steinhardt and Turoc.
Steinhardt
Princeton Physics Dept
See, "A quintessential intro into Dark Energy"
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
The Endless Universe
http://endlessuniverse.net/
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
|
| Show full article (6.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: May 10, 2008 03:28
On May 10, 3:46 am, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:> "Scott H" wrote in message
>
> news:zMqdnclC2PBAD77VnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
>
> Almost everything in the universe is the result of cyclic processes.
> Especially higher forms of order such as life and intelligence.
> So it would be logical to assume our universe is the result
> of a cyclic process. Where the death of one universe leads
> to the creation of another.
|
| Show full article (7.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: May 11, 2008 16:36
On 10 May, 11:28, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
> You need to understand the word logic first before you make logical
> claims. Logic does not lead to any claim which involves an induction
> as induction is limited to habit, not to a necessary conclusion.
But just because a phenomenon has not been noticed, that only proves
that the conditions of, or for that phenomenon have not yet transpired
in experience, but it does not prove that will not occur in the future.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
