Eternal Recurrence : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Eternal Recurrence » Eternal Recurrence

Eternal Recurrence

Ephemeral
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 6

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/12/07 - 12:14 AM: Subject: Eternal Recurrence	#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 must be accepted as true for the conclusions to be valid: Premise # 1: It is 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 wouldn't have 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 at any given moment is in a certain condition. The flow between different conditions is labeled 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 one's body, one won't be able to experience the enormous span of time that lies between death and rebirth, and also won't 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 one's 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. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 03/12/07 - 11:54 AM. Reason: fixed lack of apostrophes
Philosophers Unite! http://philosophy-forums.com

Nick_m
Student of Good

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 28, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 39

Posted 08/31/08 - 07:40 AM:	#2
I think it's questionable that 'the universe' exists as an entity separate to us, but I'll leave that for the moment, and try to work out whether your argument is at first valid, and then, secondly, whether it is sound. In doing this, I've attempted to organise your argument on a statement-by-statement basis. Please tell me if you think I have innaccurately or unfairly represented your arguments or your intended meanings, and I will attempt to redress my responses thus. "Premise #1." (It should, in fact, be "Argument 1", but that's just me and my pedantry...) 1. The universe exists 2. If the fundamental physical forces and constants hadn't been exactly the way they are, then we wouldn't have existed 3. If we didn't exist, then we couldn't have observed the properties that made our existence impossible in such a hypothetical universe 4. Therefore, The properties of the universe necessarily must meet the premises [What do you mean by this?] that our existence rests upon My response: - What is this 'universe' of which you speak? - What do you mean by 'the premises that our existence depends upon'? - In response to statement 2 above, I'd say it's entirely possible that we could exist in a universe different to this one (Unless the underlying physical forces, in your view, are inextricably part of us, then statement 2 is true by definition) -I think I know where you're coming from with this argument, but please clarify for me, so I may be able to more clearly assess its worth Premise # 2 1. The universe is a physical thing 2. [Hidden premise] Physical things exist 3. Consciousness is a consequence of this physical existence 4. The Universe consists of a large amount of energy/matter, and this is part of the universe's physical existence 5. This energy/matter is at any given moment in a certain condition 6. The flow between different conditions is labeled with the term 'time' 7. Consciousness arises as a consequence of energy/matter arranging itself in a certain condition/pattern in a limited amount of time 8. Consciousness isn't more mystical than the sum of an individual's senses and cognitive abilities/information processin 9. Therefore, consciousness is a natural result of an advanced sensory apparatus and an advanced brain [i.e. consciousness is physical(?)] My response In statement nine, are you suggesting that consciousness is physical? I think that you are, and that it really assists in clarifying your argument. Which is good! I think that if you accept the premise that 'the universe is physical' and that consciousness is part of this universe, then it follows that consciousness is physical. I, however, think that it is possible for physical things to not exist, as do not I think that I've ever experienced the physicalness of a thing. _______ Now on to your conclusions. Conclusion # 1 (You've introduced new premises here... you really should label this as 'argument # 3', in order to clarify your argument further) 1. If the Universe we live in is part of an everlasting cycle, then the exact same universe will one time have to manifest again, including one's own consciousness 2. Consciousness is nothing more than the sum of the organism's body 3. Therefore, Your consciousness/life will sooner or later have to be repeated in the exact same world history My response I think the connection between the everlasting cycle of the universe and re-manifestation of the exact current world, given that the universe could recreate itself infiinite times is correct... (unless, of course, there are infinite worlds...), but of course this depends on 'if' the Universe we live in is part of an everlasting cycle. This is a nice valid argument... now we need to think through whether the universe is in an everlasting cycle or not. I think that it would not, given a universe actually exists (of which I am skeptical). Conclusion # 2 (again, new premises here...) 1. If the universe is a phenomenon that has spontaneously arisen from nothing, it would have to mean that something can spontaneously arise from nothing 2. If something spontaneously can arise from nothing, then everything spontaneously can arise from nothing (I interpret "something/everything" as a belief in the author's mind on the interchangeability of "something" and "everything") 3. Therefore, other universes can also arise at any time 4. Another universe that has the exact same properties/physical laws as ours has an infinite amount of time to arise again 5. Therefore, The probability for another universe that has the exact same properties/physical laws as ours to never arise is zero My Response If you mean what I have written in Statement 2, please reconsider/rephrase this premise! What you have said is based on induction, and is not deductively valid. As I've expressed it, it is a logical equivalent of "something is blue, therefore everything is blue". You've made me think of a very close argument to yours, which I think is very strong, and could help you out. 1. The universe arose spontaneously 2. The universe contains infinite possibilities 3. The universe has infinite time to realise infinite possibilities 4. These possibilities include the possibility that a world identitical to ours exists 5. Each human is integral to the identity of our world 6. In a world identical to ours, we'd exist Therefore it is possible that we could exist again You may not agree with this and stick with your argument, as it's not as absolute a conclusion as your theory - the above argument only posits the possibility of recurrence, whereas your argument's conclusion states that "One must assume that recurrence really is true". Your Final Conclusion Ephemeral wrote: 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. My Response Unfortunately, this is simply fallacious. Just because it is very unlikely that you will win the lottery, that doesn't mean that you won't. Also, I think that there's a possibility of disputing the truth of some of your premises. Perhaps if you clarify your argument to me, I shall find it more plausible. Until then, I will think that if this a physical universe, it is unlikely to recur. And as I've said, I doubt whether this thing people call 'the universe' is physical, or what we mean when we talk about a 'universe' anyway. (By the way, I think you set out your post very well - thanks for writing in clear paragraphs)

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.