tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post5206681952614454888..comments2024-03-18T23:49:35.716-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence, Scrambled SidewaysEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-28277692495076118082017-08-29T13:39:13.016-07:002017-08-29T13:39:13.016-07:00@ TParent
deleting all the 3's from pi removes...@ TParent<br />deleting all the 3's from pi removes it from the class of deterministic dynamical systems with finite volume state spaces from whence it would have had to sprang, uh, sprung. Poincarés theorem only applies to systems which are like Hamiltonian dynamics in the sense that they are continuous, deterministic, finite volume state space, and have an invariant measure do determine that volume. The eternal return <br />would no longer be true in some kind of infinite-number-of-degrees-of-freedom limit of such systems. This is implicitly what underlies Boltzmann's derivation of the 2nd Law, as a probabilistic law, from Hamiltonian dynamics, which is deterministic and subject to Poincaré. I take it that this is how probabilities arise: only from this passage to a limit beyond the scope of Poincaré recurrence. See my new book on Hilbert's Sixth Problem on Amazon dot com (Lambert Academic Publishing). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-19684132615490195592016-08-01T15:33:42.050-07:002016-08-01T15:33:42.050-07:00Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann has described an...Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann has described an argument originally put forward by Georg Simmel, which rebuts the claim that a finite number of states must repeat within an infinite amount of time:<br /><br />Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.<br /><br />Thus a system could have an infinite number of distinct physical configurations that never recur. However the example presupposes the possibility of perfect continuity: for instance, if the universe proves to have a quantum foam nature, then the exact quantity of an irrational number cannot be expressed by any physical object.<br /><br />A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.<br /><br />One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time. The theory could potentially explain why a repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.<br /><br />A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.<br /><br />Other cyclic models include Conformal cyclic cosmology and Loop quantum cosmology.<br /><br />Mi views on the subject:<br /><br />I support cyclic models because I think It has more sense to think of a cyclic universe than an universe with a beginning and end. If before the Big Bang space and time didn't exit... what was the cause for the Big Bang? Also, as Wikipedia explains, the fact that our universe exists means that the probability of existing is greater than zero. And I add: the fact that our "selves", our subjective point of views exist means that the probability of our "selves" to exist is greater than zero. Which means that is logical to think that our universe will exist again and our subjective points of view will also exist again, along with other different combinations. Also, if the models which speak of the universe traveling back in time are true, they further support the idea that the recurrent iterations of ourselves are really ourselves, and not copies with a new subjective point of view. Think of a DVD. You can watch the film and when it ends you can play it again, but the film is always the same.Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-64358594763153118692016-08-01T15:32:30.934-07:002016-08-01T15:32:30.934-07:00In 1871 Louis Auguste Blanqui, assuming a Newtonia...In 1871 Louis Auguste Blanqui, assuming a Newtonian cosmology where time and space are infinite, claimed to have demonstrated eternal recurrence as a mathematical certainty. In the post-Einstein period researchers cast doubts on the idea that time or space was in fact infinite, but many models provided the notion of spatial or temporal infinity required by the eternal-return hypothesis.<br /><br />The oscillatory universe model in physics offers an example of how the universe may cycle through the same events infinitely. Arthur Eddington's concept "arrow of time", for example, discusses cosmology as proceeding up to a certain point, after which it undergoes a time reversal (which, as a consequence of T-symmetry, is thought to bring about a chaotic state due to entropy). Stephen Hawking and J. Richard Gott have also proposed models by which a universe could undergo time travel, provided the balance between mass and energy created the appropriate cosmological geometry.<br /><br />Multiverse hypotheses in physics describe models where space or time is infinite, although local universes with their own big bangs could be finite space-time bubbles.<br /><br />While the big bang theory in the framework of relativistic cosmology seems to be at odds with eternal return, there are now many different speculative big bang scenarios in quantum cosmology which actually imply eternal return - although based on other assumptions than Nietzsche's. So there are competing models and hypotheses with a temporal, spatial or spatio-temporal eternal return of everything in all variations as Nietzsche has envisaged.<br /><br />The oscillating universe theory—that the universe will end in a collapse or 'big crunch' followed by another big bang, and so on—dates from 1930. Cosmologists such as professor Alexander Vilenkin from Tufts University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Max Tegmark suggest that if space is sufficiently large and uniform, or infinite as some theories suggest, and if quantum theory is true such that there is only a finite number of configurations within a finite volume possible, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then identical instances of the history of Earth's entire Hubble volume occur every so often, simply by chance. Tegmark calculates that our nearest so-called doppelgänger, is 1010115 meters away from us (a double exponential function larger than a googolplex). In principle, it would be impossible to scientifically verify an identical Hubble volume. However, it does follow as a fairly straightforward consequence from otherwise unrelated scientific observations and theories. Tegmark suggests that statistical analyses exploiting the anthropic principle provide an opportunity to test multiverse theories in some cases. Generally, science would consider a multiverse theory that posits neither a common point of causation, nor the possibility of interaction between universes, to be an ideal speculation. However, it is a fundamental assumption of cosmology that the universe continues to exist beyond the scope of the observable universe, and that the distribution of matter is everywhere the same at such a large scale (see cosmological principle).Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-72950602167991640442016-08-01T15:30:52.680-07:002016-08-01T15:30:52.680-07:00Another consideration: if multiverse exists and th...Another consideration: if multiverse exists and there are a lot of exact copies of you, that means even if that persons have the same memories, they are not the same because they all exist at the same time, so each of them has his own subjective point of view. ¿Does that mean that if your own universe is cyclic, your "self" will not be recreated, and each exact recurrence will create a new subjective experiencer instead of the same "self"? I think not. The key point here is that copies of you in different universes are... in different universes. Maybe they are like you but their atoms, and the region of space-time is different, so it's logical that they are different persons. Think again of the chateau example. The rebuilt chateau is the same as before. We could build an exact copy of the chateau with different materials, but then it would be a copy.<br /><br />And the famous Star Trek teleporters: some people think teleport kills you and make a copy with the same memories. This case would prove hard to Lock to solve. The point is: if the teleporter reads the state of the body and recreates it at destination, then the original person dies and a copy is created. If it transforms the body to energy, transports it to destination, and rebuilds the energy to the exact atoms as before, then that's exactly what it did: rebuild. The person has not died and is alive, but his conscioussness will not have memories of the travel because his brain didn't exist while he was energy. Technically, he was dead. He didn't exist. But he was rebuilt and exists again.<br /><br />But is eternal return a possibility? Yes, it is. Today there are cosmological models which describe a cyclic universe.<br /><br />From various entries from Wikipedia:<br /><br />Eternal return (also known as "eternal recurrence") is a concept that the universe and all existence and energy has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a self-similar form an infinite number of times across infinite time or space.<br /><br />It is a purely physical concept, involving no supernatural reincarnation, but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical.<br /><br />The basic premise proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is greater than zero (we know this because our world exists). If space and time are infinite, then logic follows that our existence must recur an infinite number of times.Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-59184471000565995732016-08-01T15:26:43.120-07:002016-08-01T15:26:43.120-07:00But we can think on a paradox that maybe goes agai...But we can think on a paradox that maybe goes against this (actually I think not, but it's a thought experiment). In an eternal recurring universe, all combinations repeat because the matter is finite and always the same. Suppose that a man had the technology to travel to a parallel universe before his origin universe enters a new cycle. He now lives in another universe. The origin universe enters a new cycle and an exact duplicate of the man is born, while the original man is still alive in the other universe. It's obvious the two men are different persons and have different subjective points of views even if they are the same physically. This means in eternal recurrence a new "you" will not be you. But this thought experiment has a lot of problems which indicate it's not valid:<br /><br />- It takes for granted multiverse exist. It even takes for granted you can travel between universes.<br /><br />- Most important: if the man travels to another universe before the original universe enters a new cycle, this means matter/energy in the new cycle will be less than in the previous one, because the man is missing in the new cycle, meaning that exact recurrences cannot happen again, so it's natutal that a new iteration of the subjective experierencer can't happen again. To make it happen, the origin universe will need to regain its lost matter. Suppose that another man from another univere whith the same mass as the original man travels to the original universe, thus restoring the original amount of mass/energy. Would that mean that exact iterations can repeat again? If yes, and the original man is still alive in other universe, another recurrence of a copy of him in the original universe would mean that the subjective experiencer always changes even between exact iterations, and the "self" or "subjective experiencer" is unique and can't repeat again. But even then, if a universe loses some amount of his original matter or energy due to inter-universes transference and then regains it due to the same cause, that would not mean that is the same universe as before losing its original matter/energy, explaining that a specific subjective experiencer can't happen again. In other words, in order to your "self" or "subjective experiencer" to repeat again and again, matter/energy can't escape or return to your universe, even if total matter/energy is constant.<br />-Also, exchange of matter or energy between universes can be problematic for maintaining a cyclic eternal universe, and I doubt the universe allows for paradoxes.Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-76091971173849891762016-08-01T15:22:17.936-07:002016-08-01T15:22:17.936-07:00I agree with ikurzgetsabsurd: in recurrences which...I agree with ikurzgetsabsurd: in recurrences which are the same, you still will be you, but without memories of previous recurrences. I know that identity is linked to memories, but I think we must distinguish between the identity and the self, the subjective point of view which experiences the memories. For example, a person with amnesia who loses his memories... is still him or a different person? Well, for Locke he would be a different person, but a lot of people don't agree to Locke. If the self is reduced to memories, then the person who had the old memories is dead and the amnesiac is a different person, but I think that is obviously wrong: even without his old memories, the amnesiac person is still the same self because his subjective point of view is the same.<br /><br />Now, think about your future acts. Maybe tomorrow you're going to the cinema or maybe you'll read a book. The memories will not be the same. Does it mean that you will be a different person if you go to the cinema or read a book? Locke thought that. A person today will be a different person that the person of tomorrow, because the person of tomorrow will have memories that the person of today doesn't have. I don't think this is right. The "you" of today will be the same "you" of tomorrow because the subjective experiencer (you) will be the same, and the same applies if tomorrow you go to the cinema or read a book. Memories will be different, but the subjective experiencer is the same.<br /><br />So, yes, in an eternal recurrence your subjective point of view will exist again, but without memories. Even then, if events repeat exactly, as times passes I will have the same memories as before. If Lock reduces the self to identity, and identity to memories, this means all "yous" in exact recurrences will be really "you". Essentially, you're not being copied: you are being rebuilt, just as a millionaire dismantles an ancient chateau in its original country and rebuilds it stone by stone in another country. In eternal recurrence, there is no even a change of "country" of your self. Maybe there is in a different combination of events, but we are talking about recurrences which are exact.Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25786222631508579802016-08-01T15:19:30.434-07:002016-08-01T15:19:30.434-07:00Actually, Nietzsche tried to give a scientific exp...Actually, Nietzsche tried to give a scientific explanation to eternal recurrence. Also, it seems that in each recurrence we don't have duplicates, but the same persons, which are recreated. Nietzsche wrote: "you will live again". But does eternal recurrence and the return of ourselves makes sense? Well, the second question is the most difficult to answer. I'll quote an explanation I found on another blog by a guy named ikurzgetsabsurd who replied to the blog's owner:<br /><br />"First, for eternal recurrence to be possible, the universe must be eternal and the matter/energy in the universe must be in constant flux. If this is the case, every combination of matter and energy would be obligated to occur within the infinite scope of the universe. As you mentioned before, “we define the universe as everything.” Everything includes the pre-Big Bang singularity.<br /><br />As we can see, something must have always existed. Even if the pre-Big Bang universe was nothing, as Lawrence Krauss says, it still has attractions, detractions and qualities. Which means that this ‘nothing’ still possesses extension, according to Galen Strawson.<br /><br />We can also see, epistemically, that matter and energy is constantly changing. Leave an ice cube out for a little while.<br /><br />If the universe is eternal in some form, and matter/energy is in constant flux, and there is a limited amount of matter (according to the principle of conservation) -- there would be a limited amount of combinations in an infinite universe. Therefore it requires that every possibility must occur and reoccur. Which is eternal recurrence.<br /><br />Next, you say the recurrences of you wouldn’t be you, but would instead be clones. I disagree. Take the Ship of Theseus example. How many pieces can you replace on a ship and it still be the same ship? The same goes for the human body. Every atom in your physicality has been replaced, yet you are still you.<br /><br />If we broke down the universe and rebuilt it exactly the same, you would still be you. If you are a physicalist (and I don’t know if you are) then the mental arises from the physical. Your mind is identical with your brain. If we rebuild your brain, your mind would be rebuilt too.<br /><br />The only way that the next you wouldn’t be you is if some supernatural force implanted a new soul into you each recurrence. Instead, you are made up of the same material over and over again, and therefore, the same mind, the same identity, the same you would be recreated again and again and again.<br /><br />And your last point. Yes I agree that time is property of the universe which was created at the instant of the Big Bang, before that no time existed, but something existed, even if that existence was nothing, which you will hear from Krauss.<br /><br />Time being a property of the universe is not a problem for eternal recurrence. It would be a problem if time was an outside substance. If the universe dies and is reborn, then time dies and is reborn. Time, after all, is a property of the universe."<br />Lainier Sindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885272867198800353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-88669274419920064972012-11-08T23:44:54.157-08:002012-11-08T23:44:54.157-08:00Do you always assume the worst?
Nevermind then.Do you always assume the worst?<br /><br />Nevermind then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-8825871359025504352012-11-08T10:00:40.818-08:002012-11-08T10:00:40.818-08:00Now who's being rude?Now who's being rude?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-57794247170640331712012-11-08T01:28:47.412-08:002012-11-08T01:28:47.412-08:00Anon,
You can summarize/present your argument aga...Anon,<br /><br />You can summarize/present your argument again if you want.<br /><br />dont be afraid to use references if you feel we might not have indepth knowledge in areas that you do.<br /><br />GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13234364382920392012-11-08T00:05:02.901-08:002012-11-08T00:05:02.901-08:00Oh,come on, I asked Eric several questions that he...Oh,come on, I asked Eric several questions that he avoided answering, and if you think you can answer them instead, please do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-53558299863685100752012-11-07T22:37:01.930-08:002012-11-07T22:37:01.930-08:00Anon,
shall we at least say - that if you did not ...Anon,<br />shall we at least say - that if you did not intend to be rude, you are likely to achieve your intent better via presenting your arguments in a different way - at least in a civil forum like these comments.<br /><br />You may have an interesting position, but you don't seem to have stated it clearly enough to be able to engage with it - or at least not added anything that can be engaged with after Nov 5 3:49.<br /><br />GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-66960050814588264762012-11-07T11:06:45.831-08:002012-11-07T11:06:45.831-08:00If you two look again, you'll find that malark...If you two look again, you'll find that malarkey was not used in reference to anything that Eric said at all, but to the supernatural that he may suspect the sequentialists propose. Being a sequentialist myself, I hope I was not self-rude. But hope is the mother of self-deception so who knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-62410066475546481062012-11-06T21:38:04.226-08:002012-11-06T21:38:04.226-08:00Callan,
you are being charitable...
that was all ...Callan,<br />you are being charitable... <br />that was all in all pretty rude of anon<br /><br />GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-18164511637684122492012-11-06T19:30:59.129-08:002012-11-06T19:30:59.129-08:00Anon, I think 'malarkey' might have been t...Anon, I think 'malarkey' might have been taken as name calling, but not necessarily against a person. I'm sure there's some things you find dear, perhaps particular movies or books, that wouldn't sit well with being called malarky. Perhaps imagine the language by which you'd prefer your own valued ideas critiqued and use that method.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-7817776020219607742012-11-06T11:21:18.800-08:002012-11-06T11:21:18.800-08:00Eric, not once did I resort to name calling, unles...Eric, not once did I resort to name calling, unless any attempt to call you out is seen as name calling. You suspect I'm wrong? Is that the best you can do? I know you won't print this, but at least you'll read it.<br />Ordinarily I wouldn't comment here at all, but this thing about the similarities of many worlds and the seriousness with which you take these ideas was just too much. Bye bye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-49343985148612127592012-11-06T11:13:59.524-08:002012-11-06T11:13:59.524-08:00Anon, this has degenerated into name-calling, and ...Anon, this has degenerated into name-calling, and I suspect that you are the one who is in the wrong here. Please desist. If you wish to comment on future posts, I recommend that you present reasoned arguments rather than insults and pronouncements.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-35837812308522264052012-11-06T00:59:24.631-08:002012-11-06T00:59:24.631-08:00Not to show any disrespect for Boltzmann, who in m...Not to show any disrespect for Boltzmann, who in many ways was far ahead of his time, both in physics and in evolutionary philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-89703897360009187792012-11-05T16:56:43.475-08:002012-11-05T16:56:43.475-08:00"The orthodox view is that you can unpour a c..."The orthodox view is that you can unpour a cup of tea; it's just very unlikely."<br />Apparently if they didn't teach academic philosophers about the laws of sequences in philosophy courses, they have difficulty thinking about the subject on their own. <br />You, Eric, for example throw in some irrelevancy about entropy which again has completely missed the point.<br />Non-academics ask questions about the subject. Why don't you? <br />Do you suspect that somehow it's in the realm of the supernatural? In fact, it allows us to make some of our best arguments against such pseudoscientific malarkey.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-61389478951326889352012-11-05T15:49:31.831-08:002012-11-05T15:49:31.831-08:00Callan -- Boltzmann contemplated fluctuations towa...Callan -- Boltzmann contemplated fluctuations toward low entropy by miniscule (but finite) chance. The orthodox view is that you can unpour a cup of tea; it's just very unlikely.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-36504197681312627562012-11-05T09:33:08.804-08:002012-11-05T09:33:08.804-08:00Resets are never more than close approximations. ...Resets are never more than close approximations. You can't unpour a cup of tea but you can pour another one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-81899428940043029412012-11-04T20:48:37.776-08:002012-11-04T20:48:37.776-08:00How does it all reset again?How does it all reset again?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-66288897340907842842012-11-04T12:52:33.007-08:002012-11-04T12:52:33.007-08:00Eric, any difference at all is relevant, that'...Eric, any difference at all is relevant, that's the point. Arbitrarily choosing a second or a nanosecond makes no difference where the point is that any change at all will be reflected in the irreversible sequence of change. Or do you somehow think that sequences are perfectly reversible? And do you think causation is somehow linear as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13395215453176076182012-11-04T06:49:09.690-08:002012-11-04T06:49:09.690-08:00Scott: Thanks for the Kundera reference. I read t...Scott: Thanks for the Kundera reference. I read that back in college but I didn't recall that aspect of it (or really much else at all about it at this point). Maybe it shaped some of my thoughts about this, though.<br /><br />On nihilism and all that: Your interpretation seems within the space of reasonable interpretations to me.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-28830445388648131982012-11-04T06:44:46.119-08:002012-11-04T06:44:46.119-08:00Anon: You need only choose epsilon small enough no...Anon: You need only choose epsilon small enough not to make any relevant difference over the whole of your life. One second isn't nearly small enough. All we need is *finite*. How about one googolplexth of a second? Furthermore, since my view allows scrambling, there only needs to be a finite probability of things working out in the intended way given that recurrence plus/minus epsilon.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.com