I'm convinced that when I die I'm just going to come back here.

[esse_est_percipi]

Matter does not carry over between universes, they are created from scratch at the beginning of the big bang

It does not matter one bit how many iterations it takes to recur back to an identical universe as this

If matter does not carry through between universes, doesn't that refute eternal recurrence of numerically identical universes?
That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Wayfaerer]

If matter does not carry through between universes, doesn't that refute eternal recurrence of numerically identical universes?
That's what I was trying to say.

No, not at all. It's not the matter that is important but it's configuration. If you magically replaced every atom with an identical one in it's same place, casual flow would remain intact.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

No, not at all. It's not the matter that is important but it's configuration. If you magically replaced every atom with an identical one in it's same place, casual flow would remain intact.

You seem to be modifying the requirements now, making eternal recurrence depend on less stringent conditions...

I thought eternal recurrence was based on the exact same matter being reconfigured in the exact same way (I'm sure this was @ExitStageLeft's original point) in another universe, but now you're saying that it's not about the exact same matter, only identical configurations? Or maybe I have misunderstood.

If it's about the replacement of atoms with identical (i.e. not the exact same) ones, then there is no reason to suppose that subjective identity of experience would be maintained.

For example, if someone could download their consciousness and memories onto some advanced artificial neural network system of the future, and the artificial neural network had the exact same configuration of atoms as their brain, would they experience being them and the artificial neural network at the same time?

I guess this is about the ship of Theseus paradox.

 

[Wayfaerer]

You seem to be modifying the requirements now, making eternal recurrence depend on less stringent conditions...

I thought eternal recurrence was based on the exact same matter being reconfigured in the exact same way (I'm sure this was @ExitStageLeft's original point) in another universe, but now you're saying that it's not about the exact same matter, only identical configurations? Or maybe I have misunderstood.

If it's about the replacement of atoms with identical (i.e. not the exact same) ones, then there is no reason to suppose that subjective identity of experience would be maintained.

For example, if somehow could download their consciousness and memories onto some advanced artificial neural network system of the future, and the artificial neural network had the exact same configuration of atoms as their brain, would they experience being them and the artificial neural network at the same time?

I guess this is about the ship of Theseus paradox.

No, not even in a big crunch scenario would atoms survive. They will be re-created from sub-atomic particles shortly after the big bang.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Maybe life is a side-effect of what they were trying to simulate and they don't even know that we exist. That'd be the most amusing scenario!

lol I'd rather have this than eternal recurrence though.

 

[Wayfaerer]

lol I'd rather have this than eternal recurrence though.

well, even that doesn't necessarily exclude eternal recurrence because maybe they want to re-run the simulation over and over again. It's like fast-forwarding a movie but subjectively it would appear as normal speed to us.

They may have just created our universe to study the physics of the cosmos and we are this microscopic island of life that is a by-product of simulating physics.

If it's about the replacement of atoms with identical (i.e. not the exact same) ones, then there is no reason to suppose that subjective identity of experience would be maintained.

Why not? The Ship of Theseus paradox actually isn't all that mind-bending when you think about it. Identity is subjective, so there really is no paradox. We are just actors on cosmic film and the characters are fictional.

 

[ExitStageLeft]

I think that subjective experience would recur even with different atoms making up the individual, because I tend to take a fairly loose interpretation of the principle of identity. I think Theseus' ship would be the same ship even with every plank replaced in it.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I think that subjective experience would recur even with different atoms making up the individual, because I tend to take a fairly loose interpretation of the principle of identity. I think Theseus' ship would be the same ship even with every plank replaced in it.

This is where we would differ then.
I don't think it would be the exact same ship but a replica.
It would be the same if the same planks were used to replace the old ones over time, but not if the planks are different ones.

But now it's coming back to subjective experience and consciousness and how that is related exactly to the neurons and synapses, and whether identity of conscious experience is about material particularism or just functionalism/structure.

I think we are going round in circles lol

 

[Wayfaerer]

I think that subjective experience would recur even with different atoms making up the individual, because I tend to take a fairly loose interpretation of the principle of identity. I think Theseus' ship would be the same ship even with every plank replaced in it.

Could be either/or. You can associate an identity with something based on it's individual components or you could associate it with it's overall form.

In the case of a ship, personally, I do not see it as black and white. If, say, 45% of the ship was replaced with new components, then I would say that the ship is 55% of original self and 45% not. Where you draw the line to determine whether it is the original ship or not is entirely based on opinion.

This is where we would differ then.
I don't think it would be the exact same ship but a replica.
It would be the same if the same planks were used to replace the old ones over time, but not if the planks are different ones.

But now it's coming back to subjective experience and consciousness and how that is related exactly to the neurons and synapses, and whether identity of conscious experience is about material particularism or just function/structure.

I think we are going round in circles lol

If you were born again, you would have had the exact same atoms re-configure your body from the ground-up at the same point in time. I can't see how your subjective conscious would not be re-created in the same fashion as in this universe. If not, well then, we wouldn't be conscious right now!

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Why not? The Ship of Theseus paradox actually isn't all that mind-bending when you think about it. Identity is subjective, so there really is no paradox

I guess.

If mereological nihilism is true, then there really are no objects with parts at all. They are just sort of fictions created by the mind to order the data of experience, and make sense of it. This deals with the ship of theseus by denying the premise that there is even an objective ship to begin with.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I guess.

If mereological nihilism is true, then there really are no objects with parts at all. They are just sort of fictions created by the mind to order the data of experience, and make sense of it. This deals with the ship of theseus by denying the premise that there is even an objective ship to begin with.

Yes, and linguistic short-cuts are okay to use. Otherwise, we'd have trouble communicating with all of the hair-splitting.

 

[ExitStageLeft]

I guess.

If mereological nihilism is true, then there really are no objects with parts at all. They are just sort of fictions created by the mind to order the data of experience, and make sense of it. This deals with the ship of theseus by denying the premise that there is even an objective ship to begin with.

If there's only one universe, and everything that exists is part of that universe, and it constantly returns...

 

[esse_est_percipi]

If you were born again, you would have had the exact same atoms re-configure your body from the ground-up at the same point in time. I can't see how your subjective conscious would not be re-created in the same fashion as in this universe

Yes, if it is the exact same atoms at the same point in time, then subjective identity would seem to follow. But what does 'at the same point in time' mean in a 'different' universe? We don't even know what time really is in this universe, let alone in a meta sense in relation to other universes.

And here you are going back to the 'exact same atoms' requirement, whereas before you said

It's not the matter that is important but it's configuration

 

[Wayfaerer]

Yes, if it is the exact same atoms at the same point in time, then subjective identity would seem to follow. But what does 'at the same point in time' mean in a 'different' universe? We don't even know what time really is in this universe, let alone in a meta sense in relation to other universes.

And here you are going back to the 'exact same atoms' requirement, whereas before you said

I don't mean exact same atoms as in the EXACT same atoms, like they have personal names or some shit. I mean atoms as in elements i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

If there's only one universe, and everything that exists is part of that universe, and it constantly returns...

Which I still maintain is an article of faith, given how much we still have to learn about cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics, consciousness etc.
Modern science is only 400 years old.

atoms as in elements i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen,

ok, so just generic chemical elements in the same configurations.

But these are all just complex arrangements of atoms and protons at bottom.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Which I still maintain is an article of faith, given how much we still have to learn about cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics, consciousness etc.
Modern science is only 400 years old.

ok, so just generic chemical elements in the same configurations.

But these are all just complex arrangements of atoms and protons at bottom.

A carbon atom is a carbon atom is a carbon atom. They are all exactly identical unless they are ionized or of varying isotopes, but that's beside the point.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

They are all exactly identical

Yes, but they are not numerically identical, they are only identical in the sense that a clone is identical to another clone.

 

[Cashewmilk]

I have felt this way too, that we come back, the "I" part of us, like how we feel like we can jump into another body or wish to be someone else, I feel like that's a separate feeling, like how religious people describe the soul. But I think we won't remember our past life... but wouldn't it suck to come back and possibly end up worse? I too feel like repetition dominates the universe and we could totally repeat ourselves. I'm atheist but I'm very open to other possibilities and imagination.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Yes, but they are not numerically identical, they are only identical in the sense that a clone is identical to another clone.

Functionally, it would be the same atoms forming you as you grow. They aren't the exact same atoms as in this universe. Why would that matter? Atoms aren't individuals with unique personalities lol

I have felt this way too, that we come back, the "I" part of us, like how we feel like we can jump into another body or wish to be someone else, I feel like that's a separate feeling, like how religious people describe the soul. But I think we won't remember our past life... but wouldn't it suck to come back and possibly end up worse? I too feel like repetition dominates the universe and we could totally repeat ourselves. I'm atheist but I'm very open to other possibilities and imagination.

Assuming determinism, which I think is overwhelmingly likely, our universe would necessarily repeat as it had in this universe. That's the horror of it, an exact repeat, endlessly, without the most minute thing out of place.

 

[Brink]

This thread fucks me up. In sum -- a possible temporary solution to a permanent problem.

I think I'll stick to my beliefs :| lol

 

[Spitfire]

This thread threw me for a second just now too, but only for a minute.

I had not thought much about it, except for mostly in the context of being inside of my own head, in order to relate to it in an outward manner to seek more knowledge on it.

Thank you RedDEE for mentioning what you did for me. I did not know something like it was truly being intellectually discussed like that, or even for what it would have been called? I typed in the words you mentioned, and started reading on Levs.

 

[greekyfish10]

this is terrifying to think of. that the universe just continues endlessly. that means we'll be doing this forever. i just hope that's not true.

 

[Wayfaerer]

this is terrifying to think of. that the universe just continues endlessly. that means we'll be doing this forever. i just hope that's not true.

I sure as fuck wouldn't want that. Anything but that... But, I don't close my eyes to the truth no matter how anguishing.

 

[RedDEE]

Since we are postulating a lot of ideas here within the realm of science and philosophy, I would like to propose an idea I have.

What if nothing exists at all? Like what if what we are going through right now - is not happening? What if our entire past, our present, and future, never happened, aren't happening, and never will happen?

Here's my idea to propose that theory. Let's assume this statement is true - after we die, there is 'eternal oblivion', that is to say, after we die, there is 'nothing at all' forever.

If that proposition is true, then can we will forget we ever lived. We would be living in a state of pure nothingness for eternity - all will be forgotten.

If after we die, we go to a state of pure nothingness and forget everything forever - isn't that like we never lived at all?

For example, lets say 2 years ago you found a quarter on the sidewalk, and picked it up and stuck it in your pocket. That is a very mundane event, so you will likely forget it in a week. And now, since it's 2 years later, you will have completely and entirely forgotten that event - isn't it like it never happened at all?

 

[Wayfaerer]

Since we are postulating a lot of ideas here within the realm of science and philosophy, I would like to propose an idea I have.

What if nothing exists at all? Like what if what we are going through right now - is not happening? What if our entire past, our present, and future, never happened, aren't happening, and never will happen?

Here's my idea to propose that theory. Let's assume this statement is true - after we die, there is 'eternal oblivion', that is to say, after we die, there is 'nothing at all' forever.

If that proposition is true, then can we will forget we ever lived. We would be living in a state of pure nothingness for eternity - all will be forgotten.

If after we die, we go to a state of pure nothingness and forget everything forever - isn't that like we never lived at all?

For example, lets say 2 years ago you found a quarter on the sidewalk, and picked it up and stuck it in your pocket. That is a very mundane event, so you will likely forget it in a week. And now, since it's 2 years later, you will have completely and entirely forgotten that event - isn't it like it never happened at all?

I've thought about that before. I can offer a counter-point to that: My pain is real, thus, we must be real.

In all seriousness though, I cannot deny that I have any way of proving that we are real outside the subjective realm. I had struggled with the concept of eternal death and it's implications on our lives during my adolescence (almost an entire decade ago). How our memories are wiped in death so from our perspective, it's just the same as if we've never lived at all. Really, It's about living in the here and now. It's meaningful (if we choose) but you have to accept that everything about us is temporary. Even centuries after our deaths, we will be completely forgotten and thus it would be as if we were never born from the perspective of the world as a whole. The moment is what exists, the moment is what "matters." The moment is the only place where we have existence.

 

[RedDEE]

I've thought about that before. I can offer a counter-point to that: My pain is real, thus, we must be real.

In all seriousness though, I cannot deny that I have any way of proving that we are real outside the subjective realm. I had struggled with the concept of eternal death and it's implications on our lives during my adolescence (almost an entire decade ago). How our memories are wiped in death so from our perspective, it's just the same as if we've never lived at all. Really, It's about living in the here and now. It's meaningful (if we choose) but you have to accept that everything about us is temporary. Even after centuries after our deaths, we will be completely forgotten and thus it would be as if we were never born from the perspective of the world as a whole. The moment is what exists, the moment is what "matters." The moment is the only place where we have existence.

Your argument "my pain is real, thus we must be real" is equivalent to "I think therefore I am". That argument is Cogito, ergo sum. That's a large argument I don't want to get into.

I don't believe that we are "real". I am a Buddhist, and the Buddha says that existence, and our ego, are illusory. That is the opposite of real. Since the Buddha said it, I believe that.

I believe that we are not real, on a religious, and also philosophical level. It's simple - think of this, what am I? What is it that makes me me? Is my consciousness me? What about when I go unconscious, am I still me? Is my big toe me? Or is it just a part of me? My consciousness is a product of my brain, so is my brain me?

If you think along these lines long enough, you'll realize that you have no self, and you are not real.

I will also like to state that thinking in the moment can be good. But it can be bad. Sometimes you have to think about the future. And sometimes you have to think about the past. If you fixate your attention to only focusing the on the present moment, that will hinder your ability to predict and plan for the future. If you are only thinking about the present, and not planning for the future - you would do foolish things, such as spend all your money. If you're only thinking about the present, you don't care about the future, so you might buy a new boat now and not be able to pay your rent in the future. Because you were thinking in the present and not caring about the future.

The correct way to focus your attention is to take the past into consideration, while also taking the future into consideration, along with the present. Sometimes you should live in the moment, and sometimes you should think about the past and sometimes the future. Your focus should oscillate between the past, present, and future, as needed, to achieve whatever goal you're trying to achieve at the moment in time.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Your argument "my pain is real, thus we must be real" is equivalent to "I think therefore I am". That argument is Cogito, ergo sum. That's a large argument I don't want to get into.

Exactly, Decarte had a point. Then again, what is it to "think." We could have a computer doing the thinking for us and not even realize it!

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Functionally, it would be the same atoms forming you as you grow. They aren't the exact same atoms as in this universe. Why would that matter? Atoms aren't individuals with unique personalities lol

Functionally yes, but this just begs the question as to whether functionalism is true with respect to the problem of personal identity in the philosophy of mind.
If you could theoretically remove all the atoms which make up x's brain, and replace them with 'different' atoms, would you end up with the same consciousness (i.e.. continuity of x's consciousness) or a different one? Intuitively, it would seem it would be a different one, but I'm guessing you would disagree.

If someone could download their consciousness and memories onto some advanced artificial neural network system of the future, and the artificial neural network had the exact same configuration of atoms as their brain, would they experience being them and the artificial neural network at the same time?
It would seem that according to functionalism, you would have to say yes, which seems paradoxical.
How could you have two different perspectives on the universe at the same time?

 

[Wayfaerer]

Functionally yes, but this just begs the question as to whether functionalism is true with respect to the problem of personal identity in the philosophy of mind.
If you could theoretically remove all the atoms which make up x's brain, and replace them with 'different' atoms, would you end up with the same consciousness (i.e.. continuity of x's consciousness) or a different one? Intuitively, it would seem it would be a different one, but I'm guessing you would disagree.

If someone could download their consciousness and memories onto some advanced artificial neural network system of the future, and the artificial neural network had the exact same configuration of atoms as their brain, would they experience being them and the artificial neural network at the same time?
It would seem that according to functionalism, you would have to say yes, which seems paradoxical.
How could you have two different perspectives on the universe at the same time?

The clone would have a different conscious. However, in another iteration of our universe, the "new" you will have formed at the same time and place as you now, so it would be assumed that it would be your consciousness. It's not a simple as it being a clone universe with a clone you.

 

[ExitStageLeft]

The clone would have a different conscious. However, in another iteration of our universe, the "new" you will have formed at the same time and place as you now, so it would be assumed that it would be your consciousness. It's not a simple as it being a clone universe with a clone you.

I tend to agree with this.