Please delete this

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Arising_uk »

Impenitent wrote:...
deja vu

-Imp
:shock: That's a thought. Bugger tho' as it means I might have already done it so no point in ER as a moral guide anymore.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Impenitent »

Arising_uk wrote:
Impenitent wrote:...
deja vu

-Imp
:shock: That's a thought. Bugger tho' as it means I might have already done it so no point in ER as a moral guide anymore.
Nietzsche had no use for free will

"What alone can our teaching be? – That no one gives a man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself (the latter absurd idea here put aside has been taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant, perhaps also by Plato). No one is responsible for existing at all, for being formed so and so, for being placed under those circumstances and in this environment. His own destiny cannot be disentangled from the destiny of all else in past and future. He is not the result of a special purpose, a will, or an aim, the attempt is not here made to reach an "ideal of man," an "ideal of happiness," or an "ideal of morality;" – it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal. We have invented the notion of a "goal:" in reality a goal is lacking . . . We are necessary, we are part of destiny, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole, – there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole! – This only is the grand emancipation: that no one be made responsible any longer, that the mode of being be not traced back to a causa prima, that the world be not regarded as a unity, either as sensorium or as "spirit;" – it is only thereby that the innocence of becoming is again restored . . . The concept of "God" has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence . . . We deny God, we deny responsibility by denying God: it is only thereby that we save the world. –" Twilight of the idols (the four great errors- part 8)

-Imp
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Lev Muishkin »

Arising_uk wrote:I agree with what you say about Nietzsche. The rest is just chatting.
Lev Muishkin wrote:...

Groundhog Day (the film) is the best explanation of the meaning of the ER.
...
The whole of the idea of ER can be encapsulated in a single idea: Live your life as if you did so with maximal knowledge. In the film Groundhog Day, Bill Murray lives a day again and again until he gets it right; flawless.
Not quite Nietzsche then as he gives you no second, third, ..., chances in his ER.
Nietzsche uses ER to demands that we do not live life, like a pathetic Christian as if it were some sort of rehearsal. There is no heaven, no reward in Nietzsche's world, and when we live it had better be done right, as if we had to face the day eternally, as if we had to endlessly repeat that life the same way. He asks simply would you live your life again repeating the same dumb mistakes again and again?
No you must live your life the best you can.
There is nothing more to the ER.
Thats how I read it, i.e. act as tho' you WILL be doing what you are going to do eternally so choose wisely and it gave me one of the biggest belly-laughs I've had in Philosophy when I got to it. I also admired how it was the counter-point to Kant's universal categorical imperative. But then I had the thought, 'But how do I know if I'm on the first time around?'.
I agree. But that is why I said "AS IF you had to live your day recurrently"
Nibbana
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Nibbana »

In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.

multiverse?

noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.

I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Lev Muishkin »

Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.

multiverse?

noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.

I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.
Nibbana
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Nibbana »

Lev Muishkin wrote:
Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.

multiverse?

noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.

I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.
Do you speak English? We are kinda structure or something? Please explain.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Lev Muishkin »

Nibbana wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:
Nibbana wrote:In terms of physics, yes we are all eternal. it's kinda like the cycle of water. we are just the forms of energy. energy always exists.

multiverse?

noun (plural multiverses)
- (philosophy) The world, considered as lacking in purpose, design, or predictability.
- (physics) The hypothetical group of all the possible universes in existence.
Our universe is a very small part of the multiverse.

I don't think multiverse is what you have said. you can do the shopping in UK and have sex with your lover in US.. at the same time? The concept of multiverse is not possible.
No, "we" are not the atoms of which we are comprised. "we" are the unique physicalisation of the organisation of atoms in flux. When that structure stops, we end.
Do you speak English? We are kinda structure or something? Please explain.
The grammar is perfect, except the second 'we' ought to have a capital. My apologies.
You have the essence of the meaning.

What makes me is a unique and complex structure of matter. Not the atoms that form the structure.
Romeo and Juliet is not the Latin alphabet, but the order in which the letters of that alphabet are gathered. If you separate the words and letters - you just get a pile of nonsense.

Humans have the same atoms as a dog, a banana or a cat: mostly C, O, H, N, a little P and P, some Na and a few traces of other things.

We are not eternal, just because are atoms persist after our death. Death is the disorganisation of matter.
Nibbana
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Nibbana »

Lev Muishkin wrote:
The grammar is perfect, except the second 'we' ought to have a capital. My apologies.
You have the essence of the meaning.

What makes me is a unique and complex structure of matter. Not the atoms that form the structure.
Romeo and Juliet is not the Latin alphabet, but the order in which the letters of that alphabet are gathered. If you separate the words and letters - you just get a pile of nonsense.

Humans have the same atoms as a dog, a banana or a cat: mostly C, O, H, N, a little P and P, some Na and a few traces of other things.

We are not eternal, just because are atoms persist after our death. Death is the disorganisation of matter.


No. We are eternal. It's against the law of conservation of energy if we are not.

Right, after death we are disorganized. Our forms of human change. But we still exist in the new forms of matter. New forms of energy. We as a matter or energy are immortal. Matter or energy never dies. It just changes its form.

New things are actually the new forms of old things. Old things are actually the new forms of new things.

For example, I bought a new chair. What is it? It's now the combination of old things, ie wood, nails, etc. After five years, that chair will change. It will be old, of course, new form.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by surreptitious57 »

Human beings themselves are not eternal but the matter which they are composed of carries on existing
long after death as it is simply transferred from one state to another. It also existed long before birth as
well as it comes from dead stars many billions of years old without which there would be no life at all so
while you may not be that old the processes necessary to actually guarantee your existence however are
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by Immanuel Can »

I agree. But that is why I said "AS IF you had to live your day recurrently"
Okay, but why? We won't relive any days, so doing that does not reflect a real concern; and if we say that imagining it functions merely as an heuristic device (a way of getting information fictively that we could not get from realism, rather like the "categorical imperative" of Kant) then what line of argument shows this to be an accurate or useful heuristic?

Did not Nietzsche himself claim the "superman" is he who gets "beyond good and evil," in the sense that those categories no longer determine his view of the world at all, and no longer limit what he does? So in his view, freedom consists not in discovering moral limits, but rather in learning to banish them altogether. So over and against Nietzsche, you need to say why this heuristic business of imagining reliving days should be allowed to limit our actions. Nietzsche would say that nothing should.

What's more, it's far from clear that imagining reliving a day would yield increasingly morally better outcomes of behaviour. How many people can think of opportunities when they could have done something questionable that they passed up to do, and if they had the chance they might well do it after all? Or take the Groundhog Day scenario itself: Bill Murray tries all sorts of nasty tricks on his successive days. And even in the final scene, as he's sweeping his new love down the road, he lies to her about wanting to buy a place in town, implying that maybe he's not completely reformed after all...

Is there a guarantee that thinking about many days would make us more moral rather than potentially less...or rather than having no discernible effect at all?
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

god I hope not. Though it doesn't really make a difference, because, in truth, all lives are equally horrible. Thus, the timeline itself must be destroyed, and all infinitely greater timelines. Removing the timeline, removing The All, that is, removing all forms of existence, erasing all things, forming the 1, is the only and Supreme Morality you need concern yourselves with.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by surreptitious57 »

One cannot remove the timeline although one can become unaware of its existence. This shall
occur at the precise point when consciousness becomes non consciousness. An eternity of that
state shall then commence though one shall not actually be aware of it. Death is the final and
permanent destination and one free from all suffering so why are humans so afraid of it. None
were afraid of it before they were born so why be afraid of it before they die ? Makes no sense
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

surreptitious57 wrote:One cannot remove the timeline although one can become unaware of its existence. This shall
occur at the precise point when consciousness becomes non consciousness. An eternity of that
state shall then commence though one shall not actually be aware of it.
Death is the final and
permanent destination and one free from all suffering so why are humans so afraid of it. None
were afraid of it before they were born so why be afraid of it before they die ? Makes no sense
Yes I know. And you point it out so elegantly. If one is not aware of it, then one does not experience it. And therefore, it might as well not even exist. Therefore, we are still at square I, the problem of removing existence itself. Anything else, is just counting on the roll of the dice, hoping death will do your homework for you.
You see, sweetie?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by surreptitious57 »

The problem here is that there is no way to remove existence other than by death so thinking about it is from a practical
perspective a tad superfluous to requirement. I myself have made peace with it and so it can therefore take me any time
I am actually looking forward to spending the rest of eternity in a state of permanent painlessness and non consciousness
I find it vey soothing philosophically speaking. So therefore what ever life throws at me I know it is but a temporary thing
so try not to let it affect me too negatively. Isolation is an excellent grounding mechanism I find though I can not actually
recommend it since it is only something one can decide for oneself not anyone else. As I get older I retreat more inside of
myself so just let it be and try not to focus that intensely up on anything but just let it flow with much fluidity as possible
I am merely passing through so try not to have too tight a grip on reality as that will at some point have to be relinquished
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Are we eternal? (Eternal Recurrence)

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

surreptitious57 wrote:The problem here is that there is no way to remove existence other than by death so thinking about it is from a practical
perspective a tad superfluous to requirement. I myself have made peace with it and so it can therefore take me any time
I am actually looking forward to spending the rest of eternity in a state of permanent painlessness and non consciousness
I find it vey soothing philosophically speaking. So therefore what ever life throws at me I know it is but a temporary thing
so try not to let it affect me too negatively. Isolation is an excellent grounding mechanism I find though I can not actually
recommend it since it is only something one can decide for oneself not anyone else. As I get older I retreat more inside of
myself so just let it be and try not to focus that intensely up on anything but just let it flow with much fluidity as possible
I am merely passing through so try not to have too tight a grip on reality as that will at some point have to be relinquished
The problem here is that you missed the core point of my post. I see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying? I think you do not yet. To think that this life's death would be the absolute death, wow. This life is nothing more than a pile of rubbish and broken parts. It's the equivalent of a lousy B movie, and you think this ending of this life is the ultimate death? Ha. Please go back and read my post above this one.
Post Reply