Hobbes' Choice wrote:The ET is about living an authentic honest life the FIRST TIME, as if you had to repeat it endlessly; as if would do it all again exactly the same. Surely you don't think Nietzsche meant it literally?
I really don't know, as I understood it as the philosophical individualists response to Kant's universalist Categorical but since I was studying Philosophy at the time I thought that a problem with this belief was that if one was to assume its truth then a problem arises as to whether it was one's first time around.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:The ET is about living an authentic honest life the FIRST TIME, as if you had to repeat it endlessly; as if would do it all again exactly the same. Surely you don't think Nietzsche meant it literally?
I really don't know, as I understood it as the philosophical individualists response to Kant's universalist Categorical but since I was studying Philosophy at the time I thought that a problem with this belief was that if one was to assume its truth then a problem arises as to whether it was one's first time around.
It is always the first and the last time round, obviously.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:“We would consider every day wasted,” remarks Zarathustra, “in which we had not danced at least once. And we would consider every truth false that was not followed by at least one laugh.” In the best case, the more fully one understands these truths and acts accordingly, the deeper one’s joy may grow over the opportunities that life brings and the more willing one may become, were it possible, to relive one’s whole life again, unchanged, in the future.
Do you think Bill would benefit from reading such stuff?
If I thought Bill had the mental capacity of an animal greater than a frog, then maybe.
The idea that "eternity" increases the odds of something happen, absent any specifiable limiting factor, is a mathematical claim. That's the connection. It's also an erroneous claim, of course.
The idea that "eternity" increases the odds of something happen, absent any specifiable limiting factor, is a mathematical claim. That's the connection. It's also an erroneous claim, of course.
You should stop smoking Max Tegmark's weed, IC. It hasn't done much for his powers of logic either.
Immanuel Can wrote:The idea that "eternity" increases the odds of something happen, absent any specifiable limiting factor, is a mathematical claim. That's the connection. It's also an erroneous claim, of course.
Where did N mention eternity? Might have done but my memory is fading, so if you could point out where he said this I'd be grateful.
"Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light. - Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life. This ring in which you are but a grain will glitter afresh forever. And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things:- and for mankind this is always the hour of Noon".
The idea that "eternity" increases the odds of something happen, absent any specifiable limiting factor, is a mathematical claim. That's the connection. It's also an erroneous claim, of course.
You simply have no understanding what so ever about this issue.
Immanuel Can wrote:"Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light. - Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life. This ring in which you are but a grain will glitter afresh forever. And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things:- and for mankind this is always the hour of Noon".
Nothing about eternity? Just that the cycle is endlessly repeating. Still I personally just took it as his equivalent version of Kant's Categorical Imperative but for the individual.
Arising_uk wrote:Nothing about eternity? Just that the cycle is endlessly repeating.
Well, again... "And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things..."
Still I personally just took it as his equivalent version of Kant's Categorical Imperative but for the individual.
Interesting... the CI, but for the individual...how would that be?
In modern information theory the notion of eternal recurrence was modelled by Alan Turing in the Universal Turing Machine. (UTM). In modern physics it is modelled as the "Bang/Crunch" model, also known as bounce cosmology. It was also a central feature of pre-Socratic philosophy as well as that of the Mayans, Buddhists and early Hindus. None of these alternative themes of eternal recurrence are anything like that of Nietzsche because a cyclical and eternal universe can only be a self-causal one. As Turing so masterfully proved the UTM must be entirely self-programming which means it can never produce the same reality twice.
Obvious Leo wrote:... As Turing so masterfully proved the UTM must be entirely self-programming which means it can never produce the same reality twice.
Where did Turing concern himself with any such thought?
Immanuel Can wrote:Well, again... "And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things..."
Yes but in his sense exactly the same thing is going to be repeated, not some eternity for all possible outcomes to be computed.
Interesting... the CI, but for the individual...how would that be?
How he thought it I thought, so instead of choosing a moral action with the idea that it would become a universal law for all if acted upon, i.e. pretty much a restatement of the 'do unto ...' of Christianity, one chooses as though one will be doing that action in the light of having to do it endlessly along with all it's consequences.
Obvious Leo wrote:... As Turing so masterfully proved the UTM must be entirely self-programming which means it can never produce the same reality twice.
Where did Turing concern himself with any such thought?
The Universal Turing Machine is the theoretical construct which underpins all of modern information theory. Obviously Turing was a mathematician and not a physicist or a philosopher but he nevertheless successfully but accidentally defined physical reality as an informational construct and therefore as a computation. This view is nowadays commonplace amongst the more enlightened thinkers in theoretical physics although it cannot be modelled within the current paradigms. Turing modelled the UTM as an eternal virtual reality MAKER which was both self-causal and self-organising and thus could never make the same reality twice. Even a simple overview of the UTM would be beyond the scope of a forum such as this but in a nutshell the UTM is a computer which programmes its own input. What Turing didn't realise was that exactly the same definition could be applied to both the human mind and the entire cosmos.
