On 'the Eternal Recurrence' (circular time theory of old)

[Kyriakos]

The Eternal Recurrence was the name given to the iteration of this old theory, by Nietzsche. Before him it was existent in presocratic movements such as the Pythagorians (6th century BC), as well as in some philosophical schools of the Hellenistic and Roman age. The Stoics, in particular, are tied to it, and their own system of thought is argued to be linked to Heraklitos of Ephesos, who had the theory in mid 6th century BC (some decades after Pythagoras main activity) that all phenomena are facades of an ongoing struggle of a sole element to reach equilibrium (which he named as 'fire').

The Eternal Recurrence can be condenced in the following description:

-Time is viewed as infinite, but circular, since the actual (material) basis for the phenomena in the universe are argued to be finite. In brief this means that no matter how vast the total number of the tiniest atomic/particle bits of all material are, they are not actually infinite in number. From that premise it follows that if the Univrse will go on existing forever, those non-infinite particles will at some point construct all possible different arrangements between them, and (in the theory inevitably) they will then go on to repeat previous arrangements.
-The theory by Nietzche presents this effect as a linear repetition of the previous phenomena. For example Nietzsche would at some time be born again, go through the same crap, and end up thinking again of the theory of Eternal Recurrence, and so on.
-The theory is (loosely) based on the premise that there do indeed exist 'atomic' (in the sense un-divisible) final particles to matter. If the divisions of matter end at some level, and if matter can go on existing for an infinity of time, it might indeed follow that at some point matter will form again the same phenomena. But the premise already is in doubt, cause it might be so that divisions never end (another presocratic, Elean in this case, thesis).

*

The thread aims to infinitely divide what is left of the phenomenically few posters who matter, in sharing their views on this theory. You can note if in your view the afforementioned theory has some ground or not, and you can also elaborate on your view. You can also mention other iterations or alterations of this theory in time..

 

[eleinvisible]

those non-infinite particles will at some point construct all possible different arrangements between them, and (in the theory inevitably) they will then go on to repeat previous arrangements.

Yes, but only if the universe exists long enough. Given the estimated number of atoms, I'd bet it would have to exist for a very long time. And consider the positions of subatomic particles, etc. Would not those have an impact on the universe in some measurable way? (This theory would then include those as 'atoms'?) Why would it be circular? What is to prevent it from repeating states before all possible states have been expressed?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think his own version of the theory concludes that the distinct larger unities/objects (eg individual humans) will be pretty much a repeat of the previous time. Not sure why they would also (apparently) exist in the repeated timeline(s) as well, along with everything else there.

I suppose they could repeat in a multitude of other ways, even if particles are finitely divisible and time is infinite. For example they may re-arrange more randomly, as in minute to near-completely different variations of the previous case.

Borges, the Argentinian writer, focuses on those issues heavily

 

[Amallric]

The idea of Nietzsche reincarnating makes me think of the Swamp man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman which is a "copy" perfectly similar to its original, but devoid of any "meaning".
But from the point of view of modern science this theory is incorrect. Matter does not arrange itself in random patterns until every pattern has been "used up", but in accordance with the laws of thermodynamic forms a system that steadily evolves towards the state of equilibrium(i.e. the state with the maximal entropy). Time itself is nothing but the mesure of entropy so I do not see any reason at our current state of knowledge to believe time is infinite. Once entropy will reach it's maximum, time will end.

 

[Kyriakos]

The idea of Nietzsche reincarnating makes me think of the Swamp man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman which is a "copy" perfectly similar to its original, but devoid of any "meaning".
But from the point of view of modern science this theory is incorrect. Matter does not arrange itself in random patterns until every pattern has been "used up", but in accordance with the laws of thermodynamic forms a system that steadily evolves towards the state of equilibrium(i.e. the state with the maximal entropy). Time itself is nothing but the mesure of entropy so I do not see any reason at our current state of knowledge to believe time is infinite. Once entropy will reach it's maximum, time will end.

Interesting. But some systems never reach an actual equilibrium. Even if they always near it. Eg infinite series like the Fibonacci number series, which will tend to have the near-final changes produce approximately a final number which is Phi times larger than the immediately previous one (ie that series has a limit at Phi for alterations in its positional number values). More of note due to alterating from both sides to Phi prior to any limit (smaller than Phi, larger than Phi, etc).

Not sure how any system can reach a perfect equilibrium, though. Surely you can have something already be in that state, at least in math (the Golden Spiral, in regards to the difference in size between any two next positions will always be equal to Phi). But that assumes you only care about equilibrium in (in this case) one parameter, or (in the general case) a finite number of parameters.

 

[Amallric]

There is only one parameter involved in this case, which is the amount of entropy.

 

[Amallric]

I personally see it in the following way: in your(or Nietzsche's) view, matter arranges and re-arranges itself according to a cyclical pattern, but since the pattern is cyclical, the global amount of information is constant. This is not how modern physics view the world. The amount of information needed to describe the system(= the universe) is constantly growing. This is "time". There is a limit of how much information the world can contain - this is also why your beloved paradoxes with limits do not work. Once this limit is reached, there is no "time", and nothing can be changed.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well:

A) The circular time is Nietzsche's view, not my own (i don't have a view on this, but as noted previously on the thread i tend to not expect a linear repetition even if the premise of finite particles and infinite time to arrange them was sound).

B) The paradoxes don't rest on the idea of a Limit, they use the idea of a Limit to showcase the gap between math and patterns in the temporal/material world. Basically Zeno and the other Eleatics were arguing that the senses create a zone of illusion that the thinker is actually examining external phenomena.

 

[Amallric]

the senses create a zone of illusion that the thinker is actually examining external phenomena.

This is exactly the premise of modern physics.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is exactly the premise of modern physics.

That is good, although it was the main position of the ancient era as well (mostly termed as Idealism by now, named after Plato's "theory of ideas' or theory of forms/archetypes).



Worth to note that Nietzsche self-proclaimed to be the enemy of all Idealism, although it has to be said that he seemed to have limited what Idealism is (mostly to the views of christians/clergy, and a nihilistic adandonment of interest for the material body or the world). But this is not a really good definition of Idealism. That branch of theory includes anything from the extremes of Solipsism, to the common criticism against the senses being translating the external world in a manner which is actually deeply tied to the external phenomena themselves

 

[Amallric]

Interesting. I wasnt aware of such a large definition of idealism. Can you explain? I thought the main point of idealism was the existence of a world of ideas which contains the "truth". The modern physics point of view is more similar to Kant's "thing in itself", or the christian substance/accidents distinctions.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is very rare (or almost not there at all) to have the claim in presocratic or even platonic texts of some 'truth' even in the realm of thoughts. Although TBF Plato did take a step back, and argued that the ideas/forms/archetypes are tied to an Arche above them, which he termed 'The Agathon' (which seems to mean 'the Benevolent', and is an archetype itself).
Just a couple of decades before the rise to prominence of Plato/Socrates, the main philosophers were arguably Anaxagoras and Protagoras (philosophy for the first time had come to be centered in Athens, as a very direct result of the victory in the Greek-Persian war, and the Athenian victory in the Eurymedon river, Asia Minor). Anaxagoras and Protagoras were of the view that the ability to think pretty much results in a reflection of any objects there, turning them into appearences (phenomena means just that). Protagoras argued that "man is the meter of all things", which had the meaning that our knowledge is bound in a particular and human system of thought/mentality.

The 'thing in itself' would connote that the objects are outside of our understanding, and merely translated in our realm of thought by the senses and our human mentality. Their 'reality' is not to be found.

 

[Kyriakos]

Is the discussion here dead?

I was enjoying it

 

[Henry IX]

OK, to kick it off again...

To illustrate a problem with the arguments involving infinites I have two thoughts:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that for any system of logic there are statements that are true but cannot be proven to be true except by experimentation. This is an interesting disproof of Plato's archetypes. Mathematical logic is in fact both limited and only true within its own bounderies. That is to say there is no overarching truth - the world of shadows is as pure and perfect as it is possible to be.

2. Boltzmann brains - if a chaotic system is left for infinite time then all possible arrangements of matter and energy must occur, if this is true then self aware entities sould pop out of the random fluctuations. If system runs for long enought the number of self aware entities exisiting in an environment of maximum entropy should out number infinately the number of brains existing in ordered systems (like us). Therefore we have a statisitical chance of 0 of exisitng - we should all be Boltzmann brains. The fact that we are not suggests that existance is finite.

The issue with defining time as the direction of entropy is that entropy is itself framed in terms of time. Quantum mechanics can run in both directions of time equally well, however relativistic physics can only run in a single direction. The quantum basis of time is still debated by physics and will make up part of the 'grand unified theory' that physicists have been trying and failing to come up with for the last 100 years.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you for the post

Although i haven't read about those two ideas (i will likely look them up now), i have something to note on the above:

-Math was not seen as expanding as a means of definition, outside its borders (at least not famously by other main presocratics apart from likely Pythagoras and his students). Heraklitos seems to view it as another system outside the veil covering the endless changes of phenomena. The Eleatics also function from the (quite shadowy) premise that no human thought system actually leads to 'truth', and by definition they are all systems of 'view', and inherently unable to escape this limit. However it is worth noting that both Xenophanes and Parmenides (and Zeno) and the final Eleatic, Melissos of Samos, use the image of 'an infinitely divisible sphere' as the cosmos (or god, i think it is a blur in that manner, but likely it is the same). The sphere was namely chosen (as explained by Parmenides in his surviving parts of 'On Nature') due to the sphere being obviously the volume which expands inevitably always in the same manner towards all directions. There are some other math stuff on that by Melissos, but ultimately Zeno uses most of the infinite series argument, but (as i noted before in the thread) very likely not out of a math interest but so as to present the gap between thought and the senses (the senses picking up finite and distinct forms, the intellect being able to theorise on infinite ones, etc).

-As for the chaotic systems, maybe there can be chaotic realms in a whole which has other dynamics as well, so it would not follow in that case that if this state goes on in part of the cosmos it should spill over to all of it, or change it so that in a future the whole will either be chaotic or in perfect balance. Worth noting that Heraklitos exactly presented a state of a force (he termed it as 'Fire') which is forever bound to try to seek a state of balance, but this cannot happen and thus it is to form multitudes of different forms in our cosmos. And in his theory the cause of this unbalance is in the shadows, cause one can only see the manifestations of the triggered non-balance (i like this arrangement).

 

[joak]

2. Boltzmann brains - if a chaotic system is left for infinite time then all possible arrangements of matter and energy must occur, if this is true then self aware entities sould pop out of the random fluctuations. If system runs for long enought the number of self aware entities exisiting in an environment of maximum entropy should out number infinately the number of brains existing in ordered systems (like us). Therefore we have a statisitical chance of 0 of exisitng - we should all be Boltzmann brains. The fact that we are not suggests that existance is finite.

Urrgh, not sure where you got this from but it is horribly wrong. It's an argument that an infinite set can't have finite subsets; it doesn't understand either probability or logic.

 

[diegosimeone]

The Greek development on "what is time" and "how to measure time" is essentially what made sailing and and naval travel possible. You can unlock a few small secrets if you try to solve that puzzle

So essentially time was connected with the stars and the planetary system, weather, astronomy and physics among others. And every ancient culture viewed the sun and the moon as divine. Egyptians' take on time is also quite interesting.

Aristotle's view on time was interesting but I don't remember too much from it.

 

[Plushie]

This is exactly the premise of modern physics.

Do not confuse your physicalist priors for necessaries of science

The only necessary position that science takes is instrumental.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do not confuse your physicalist priors for necessaries of science

The only necessary position that science takes is instrumental.

That is a bit like claiming that it makes sense to wear boots if you have to walk on burning charcoal, but it's not like you are bound to wear them in the future event of that burning charcoal walking.

The note that phenomena are not presented in some 'reality' of theirs, but through our human filters of thought and the senses, is not really a debatable position. It merely is correct.