Philosophy Now Forum

J. Harvey Lomax on the love of eternity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nie ... Recurrence

Philosophy Now wrote:J. Harvey Lomax on the love of eternity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nie ... Recurrence

Carousels make me want to vomit.

Carousel made Logan run

-Imp

Eternal Recurrence gave me one of the biggest belly-laughs I've had in Philosophy as on the first read round of Nietzsche I suffered a small depression as he's no easy read but second time around I laughed like a drain at his brilliant idea for the individual to have an opposite to Kant's Categorical. But then I thought, 'How do you know if you're on it for the first time?' Oh well.

Impenitent wrote:Carousel made Logan run

-Imp

I thought it made Billy sing and dance?

Arising_uk wrote:

Impenitent wrote:Carousel made Logan run

-Imp

I thought it made Billy sing and dance?

different show

-Imp

Eternal Return is just cute nonsense. Mathematically, it just doesn't work.

It hypothesizes an infinite span of time (or infinite universe, or in other versions, infinite numbers of universes...possible worlds...etc.) Supposedly, enough time makes a "return" inevitable. That is an easy fallacy to fall into because of our experience. In our experience, long periods of time plus limited variables increases the chances of a particular combination of variables occurring. That works with dice: so why doesn't it work with the universe?

Easy. Dice work because they only have six sides each, and you have a high number of rolls to overcome the 1 in 6 unlikelihood of a number reappearing. But what if the dice had infinite sides? Then, no matter how often you rolled them, there would always be an infinite chance against any particular number ever reappearing.

Likewise, if the universe is infinite then there are in it, by definition, infinite "other" ways the universe could always be, other than the way it is. The long periods of time are there in the theory, but the hard cap on variables is not. The pen on your desk could be red or green...could have one micron more or less ink in it...could be one micrometer to the left or right. Or there could be no "desk," or you could have a world in which the word for "desk" is "emu"..and so on, infinitely. There is no need to "return" to any option, ever, since there always exists an infinite number of other options.

Unless Nietzsche's believers can prove there's a principle that absolutely limits the number of possible variables and combinations in which the variables CAN occur, then a longer span of time or space just increases the odds against ANY one particular outcome recurring...ever.

So Nietzsche's all smoke and mirrors on that one.

We can be sure we pass this way but once. There are infinite possibilities against it being otherwise.

Immanuel Can wrote:Eternal Return is just cute nonsense. Mathematically, it just doesn't work.e.

It's not literal. it's not supposed to be science.
It's not cute.
I can't believe you took this position. Do you really imagine that Nietzsche was that stupid?

Arising_uk wrote:Eternal Recurrence gave me one of the biggest belly-laughs I've had in Philosophy as on the first read round of Nietzsche I suffered a small depression as he's no easy read but second time around I laughed like a drain at his brilliant idea for the individual to have an opposite to Kant's Categorical. But then I thought, 'How do you know if you're on it for the first time?' Oh well.

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?

“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.

Why does anyone take this thread seriously?

[Edited by iMod]

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.

Melchior wrote:Why does anyone take this thread seriously?

Have you bothered to read Nietzsche?

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?

Immanuel Can wrote:Eternal Return is just cute nonsense. Mathematically, it just doesn't work. ...

Wtf has Maths got to do with it?