Philosophy Now Forum

Nietzsche's idea is based on a very basic error in logic that will be apparent if we think carefully at all.

An "Eternal Return" can only happen if two conditions apply:

1. An infinite span of time in which for events to recur, and

2. A finite number of variables capable of recurring.

If either of these two conditions is not applicable, his supposition becomes at least unnecessary, but more accurately, it becomes so mathematically improbable as to be (rationally) impossible.

Now #1 is possible, though we have no confirmation of it. It's perhaps even probable. So let's grant it. But #2 is certainly not applicable.

For supposing #1 to be true, there are an infinite number of universes or possible combinations of events -- in the dimension of time, certainly, as is obvious from the word "infinite," but then very likely in the dimension of space as well. So time and space are probably both of infinite largeness, if #1 is true. So far so good?

But if there is infinite time, infinite space, or both, then by definition there are also infinite variables within those dimensions. There are, in short, an infinite number of ways the universe could be.

Infinity is an odd thing. As the "Hilbert's Hotel" thought experiment shows, the rules of logic and mathematics simply dissolve when we try to use it to describe physical reality. And one of the odd effects that follows for the "Eternal Return," is that there is no longer any reason to suppose the universe must "return" to any state in which it has been already, no matter how long time persists.

And why is that? It's because no matter how much time there is, there are always an infinite number of other ways for things to be or become. So the way we are is one state out of an infinite number of possibilities, and the chances against any such state occurring are quite simply -- infinite!

In short, there is no "Eternal Return" if the universe is actually infinite. And postulating additional "bigness" does not make it any more likely, but rather infinitely less likely.

You will not reincarnate and there's only one universe.

No, please stop asking retarded questions!

Straight to the point, as usual, Henry!

henry quirk wrote:You will not reincarnate and there's only one universe.

How do you know?

I've got the first bit of this one, Henry.

"Universe", by definition, means "everything." Analytically, there can be many planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc., but they all fit into "universe." It's the comprehensive term.

As for reincarnation...I'll let Henry take a swing.

"How do you know?"

I see no *evidence of either, so I surmise that both are hooey.

I could be wrong, but till proven wrong, I say: You will not reincarnate and there's only one universe.

#

Straight to the point, as usual, Henry!

HA!









*if folks reincarnate, where are they? I don't know any reincarnated folks. if our universe is just a lobe in a larger multiverse, where's the proof? some math sez the multiverse is possible, but possibility is not certainty or necessity.

*shrug*

I'd add that "reincarnation" is part of a metaphysical package that requires other beliefs, such as the circularity of time (to allow for indefinite numbers of recursions) and some sort of obligatory, objective moral index (like "karma") to somehow be "written into" the fabric of the universe.

That might not be utterly impossible, but it would certainly require a complex religio-scientific explanation: "scientific" because it would have to locate these features on our map of the natural world, but "religious" as well because the explanation required would have to transcend this physical world in order to account for the physical world. For analytically speaking, an "explanation" can't be smaller, or operate only within, the thing it explains. (It has to be capable of accounting for the laws and rationality of science itself, or it's not an "explanation" capable of the name.)

Yeah, what Mannie said.

You kill me, Henry.

The ultimate straight-shooter, and never fails to entertain.

Yep, I'm adorable...


A little more...

If Joe tells me he has a ham sandwich in a box, it cost me nuthin' to (provisionally) accept his claim. Ham and bread exist and I've used them to make my own ham sandwiches. That is, Joe's claim is mundane and ordinary.

Now, if Joe tells me he has a ham sandwich in a box and that sandwich can -- all on its lonesome -- sing, dance, and tell jokes, well: Joe's gonna have to open that box up. I wanna see the sandwich sing, dance, and tell jokes. I wanna examine it for micro-robotics and a tiny speaker. Joe's claim, in this case, is extraordinary. Such a thing -- a singing, dancing, joke-cracking, ham sandwich -- seems to be outside (a violation of) the way the world works.

That is: an extraordinary claim requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I see no such evidence for reincarnation or the multiverse.

Agreed.

Gotta love it when theist and atheist align.

henry quirk wrote:Gotta love it when theist and atheist align.

It happens more than you might realize, it's just that the ones who don't align, make a lot more noise.

But they probably don't understand what they think they know.

Agreed again. That's a good thought.

The thinking Theist and the thinking Atheist have lots to talk about, and lots about which they can agree. Truth is a destination; and the pursuit of it produces natural convergence, regardless of where a person happens to start.

What I like about Henry in particular is that he "is what he is," so to speak; he says what he believes, and seems perfectly ready to stand by what he says. Who can't respect that?