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

[LetsGosam]

My biggest fear is you literally start over as a baby.

 

[Wayfaerer]

My biggest fear is you literally start over as a baby.

Well, that IS the concept of eternal recurrence, and that baby would be YOU. Free will would break eternal return but I don't see free will as being feasible. Even if free will were to hypothetically exist, I think the conditions to make us again would be too complex for them to occur again. Determinism just makes more sense.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

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.

I'm not sure I see all this as consistent.
I mean, there is just so much I don't understand about all this.
Another iteration of our universe -- it would not be numerically the same as this universe. And I can understand what the 'same time and place' means, but I can't grasp what it means in relation to other iterations of this universe. By definition it seems that a different iteration would mean a different time and place.. I don't understand meta or trans-universe time. I don't even really understand time itself.
And therefore I can't understand what it could mean in relation to identity of consciousness.

But listen, you seem to have it all figured out and you seem to understand the physics and metaphysics of it, so I won't keep arguing.
But you do seem to speak as if you know more that all the current experts on cosmology and astrophysics and quantum physics and neuroscience.

You are both terrified of eternal recurrence yet also intent on arguing for it/believing in it even though you cannot possibly know whether it could even be a metaphysical or logical possibility or not. But anyway, I think we've gone over this before. lol

 

[Wayfaerer]

I'm not sure I see all this as consistent.
I mean, there is just so much I don't understand about all this.
Another iteration of our universe -- it would not be numerically the same as this universe. And I can understand what the 'same time and place' means, but I can't grasp what it means in relation to other iterations of this universe. By definition it seems that a different iteration would mean a different time and place.. I don't understand meta or trans-universe time. I don't even really understand time itself.
And therefore I can't understand what it could mean in relation to identity of consciousness.

But listen, you seem to have it all figured out and you seem to understand the physics and metaphysics of it, so I won't keep arguing.
But you do seem to speak as if you know more that all the current experts on cosmology and astrophysics and quantum physics and neuroscience.

You are both terrified of eternal recurrence yet also intent on arguing for it/believing in it even though you cannot possibly know whether it could even be a metaphysical or logical possibility or not. But anyway, I think we've gone over this before. lol

Who are all of these expert cosmologists and what are they proposing? Where can I find a consensus of what happens at the cosmological level? These are serious questions, I am not being facetious.

I am not postulating this theory as absolute fact, I am only presenting an argument (which imho makes a lot of sense) and wish for counter-arguments. You've provided some philosophical reasoning, which is good and I do appreciate it especially when they are well-made like yours. However, with every philosophical point that you've made, it can be countered with another e.g. will we experience subjective consciousness in other iterations of the universe or only this one. I suggest that you would because that is how your consciousness came to be in the first place. If it happened once, why not again? I don't fear ExitStageLeft's Eternal Recurrence, It's not what I want (eternal death) but it certainly has its silver lining and beats the hell out of Nietzsche's idea. I just believe it to be too optimistic perhaps? I fear "my" type of eternal recurrence.

I found an article that is interesting. I don't know what the rules are about linking so if you're interested it's a sciencemag article about one of Stephen Hawking's last papers.

 

[heraclitus]

As an alternative there is a theory that we live many lifetimes, each time learning a different lesson. All lessons learned, we achive non-being.

From this perspective, ctb could be a necessary step on the path to spiritual fulfilment or a means to step out of a developmental dead end.

You do come back but in a qualitatively different situation (even if the lesson is the same).

So - no fear.

 

[CarbonMonoxide]

I believe that death is the eternal end of our consciousness, just like birth is its beginning. I could be wrong. The fact is, regardless of whether it's nothingness, eternal recurrence, the matrix, hell or whatever else, you can't escape it. Whether you ctb or not, you'll have to face whatever it is that happens after death. There's no other way.

I propose that this is a reason to NOT fear the afterlife. Think of it this way, this life has been terrible for us, right? Why wait for this miserable existence to come to its inevitable conclusion? Why suffer anymore HERE if we don't have to?

I'd say the uncertainty of death combined with its inescapable nature would actually encourage a person to get it over with. What comes next after this misery? We should just ctb and find out already.

 

[RedDEE]

I believe that death is the eternal end of our consciousness, just like birth is its beginning.

You're right. And also, the death of our consciousness gives birth to something new.

Can you really call this life we live now life? We experience suffering and heartache our entire lives. How can you really call this life? I think what we are experiencing now is death. What we are experiencing now isn't our 'real life'. How could anyone call this our real life if we aren't going to stay here forever? Surely our real life and our real home is the place that we stay at forever and never leave.

After we die, we go to our eternal abode. When we die, it's not the end of our life. It's the end of our death.

After we die, we go into the deathless. A timeless place, completely formless. Limitless in nature. Immovable. Immutable.

Infinite peace.

 

[Homecoming]

After we die, we go to our eternal abode. When we die, it's not the end of our life. It's the end of our death.

After we die, we go into the deathless. A timeless place, completely formless. Limitless in nature. Immovable. Immutable.

I believe that when we die and leave our bodies, we are only consciousness—the same consciousness we had while in our physical bodies, although with much greater awareness because the brain no longer filters our clarity. Once we are no longer confined by our physical limitations (which includes our brain and its functions) and we return to the afterlife, our awareness expands to greater spiritual knowing, which is our natural, eternal state. Death is the state where you are physically dead, but your consciousness survives.

 

[RedDEE]

I believe that when we die and leave our bodies, we are only consciousness—the same consciousness we had while in our physical bodies, although with much greater awareness because the brain no longer filters our clarity. Once we are no longer confined by our physical limitations (which includes our brain and its functions) and we return to the afterlife, our awareness expands to greater spiritual knowing, which is our natural, eternal state. Death is the state where you are physically dead, but your consciousness survives.

I kind of believe that, but in a different way.

I believe that consciousness is purely a function of the brain. When the brain ceases functioning, our consciousness stops. But after we are dead, and our consciousness stops - a new type of consciousness arises. You can't really call it consciousness, it's sort of a "non-consciousness".

Basically, I believe that after you die, you enter a sort of new reality, that has an infinite number of dimensions. Every single possibility is actualized within this new reality - every possible thing. All possibilities. But the odd thing is - it is everything, and nothing at the same time.

Right now we are living in a temporal, and limited reality. This new reality will be unlimited, and contain all possible things existing in sort of a "solid state". It will be all possible worlds (an infinite number) in all possible universes(an infinite number) containing all possible intelligent beings(an infinite number). But it will not be "moving" and it will not contain time. It will be EVERYTHING all at once, but at the same time - it will be at a state of complete rest.

It's hard for me to explain. But essentially, it will be EVERYTHING but at the same time it will be NOTHING. It will be a NOTHING that is equal to EVERYTHING and a EVERYTHING that is equal to NOTHING.

 

[TheQ22]

If I end up back here when I die, I'll kill myself.

 

[RedDEE]

If I end up back here when I die, I'll kill myself.

LOL.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

If I end up back here when I die, I'll kill myself.

But if you do end up back here, you won't know. It will seem like the first time from your subjective viewpoint.

If eternal recurrence is true, we have already lived the same life infinite times.

But if this is true, maybe there is some trick to break out of the cycle..like a bug in the program or something.

Eternal recurrence cannot simply be the meaning to existence. Because if it is, then it's hell. But hell can only have meaning in relation to heaven.

So if eternal recurrence exists, which is hell, then heaven must also exist.

Personally, I think eternal recurrence is an impossible fiction because actual infinities cannot be a feature of reality.

 

[RedDEE]

But if this is true, maybe there is some trick to break out of the cycle..like a bug in the program or something.

Life is certainly trying to keep us here forever. Life is like a kidnapper, and we're the kidnapee, trapped in life's basement.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Life is certainly trying to keep us here forever. Life is like a kidnapper, and we're the kidnapee, trapped in life's basement.

And anyone who wants to live or clings on to life or is pro-life is basically afflicted with the condition known as 'stockholm syndrome'.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Eternal recurrence cannot simply be the meaning to existence. Because if it is, then it's hell. But hell can only have meaning in relation to heaven.

You're right, there is a heaven. Heaven is the lives that people wouldn't mind living over again. Once you are in either heaven (there) or hell (dread to live over again), there is no escape. No. Escape. And the big crunch is making a comeback.

If there was a way out, we would've already broken the cycle in an untold past iteration yet we are still here.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

You're right, there is a heaven. Heaven is the lives that people wouldn't mind living over again. Once you are in either heaven (there) or hell (dread to live over again), there is no escape. No. Escape. And the big crunch is making a comeback.

If heaven is something inherently unreachable for a lot of people, and hell is something which 'just happens due to luck', then heaven and hell are just useless words and existence itself is absurd and meaningless. This is a philosophical stance, not science.

We would only have 'broken the cycle' if we assume that there is a cycle to begin with. No one has shown or demonstrated that there is.

I don't think there could be 'untold past iterations' because real infinities cannot be part of the fabric of reality. They are mathematical fictions in set theory that only give paradoxes when you try to apply them to reality.

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." David Hilbert

 

[RedDEE]

I don't think there could be 'untold past iterations' because real infinities cannot be part of the fabric of reality. They are mathematical fictions in set theory that only give paradoxes when you try to apply them to reality.

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." David Hilbert

You keep re-iterating this fact, and people keep going on not understanding it. It took me a long time to understand what you're trying to convey.

You see, I had problems with the idea of Quantum Immortality, which is similar to what you guys are talking about. It bothered me for a very long time, but I talked to a very smart physicist via email named Jack Mallah, and he helped me understand what you're saying.

Once you understand that there is no infinite in reality - you can sit back and relax. You can just ride it out, and wait for this shit to end, knowing good and well it's not going to go on forever.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

You keep re-iterating this fact, and people keep going on not understanding it. It took me a long time to understand what you're trying to convey.

Yes, I know I keep saying the same thing all the time lol
But I really think it's an interesting point, and people keep using this term 'infinity' without really asking if it could actually apply to what exists.

Quantum Immortality, which is similar to what you guys are talking about

Ye, I've heard of that too. Another metaphysical scare-story which might sound plausible because it has the backing of a daunting and complicated word -'quantum'. But there is no evidence for it as far as I know. I just think that when it comes down to it, people will believe what they want to believe regardless of arguments or evidence.

All that being said, I do enjoy these kinds of discussions.

Jack Mallah,

Didn't he write a paper on quantum suicide?
Did he say anything to you about this eternal recurrence idea?

 

[RedDEE]

Didn't he write a paper on quantum suicide?
Did he say anything to you about this eternal recurrence idea?

Yes he wrote the paper on Quantum Suicide. He used to be part of a forum called "everything-list" where smart physicists got together to argue about the Theory of Everything. I spent many hours peering on that board, trying to understand the vastly complex information these dudes were battling out about.

He did say something about eternal recurrence to me. But I don't remember what he said. He wrote, however, an amazingly, outstanding paper titled Many-Worlds Interpretations Can Not Imply 'Quantum Immortality'

And in this paper he wrote,

The method of Theory Confirmation can be applied to the question of immortality. In
general, if we are immortal, there would be two classes of observations: Those made by
normal people within a normal lifespan, and those made in the 'afterlife'. For 'quantum
immortality' the 'afterlife' will be taken to mean those who find themselves to be much
older than a normal human lifespan.
If the 'afterlife' is infinite, then it will have infinitely more integral measure than the
normal life. Thus, the effective probability of finding oneself in a normal lifetime would
be zero. If there is no 'afterlife' then the effective probability of that would be unity. By
applying Bayesian reasoning, this implies that if one does find oneself in a normal
lifetime, as we do, there must be no infinite afterlife.


Which is an incredibly enlightening, and insightful thing to say.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Yes he wrote the paper on Quantum Suicide. He used to be part of a forum called "everything-list" where smart physicists got together to argue about the Theory of Everything. I spent many hours peering on that board, trying to understand the vastly complex information these dudes were battling out about.

He did say something about eternal recurrence to me. But I don't remember what he said. He wrote, however, an amazingly, outstanding paper titled Many-Worlds Interpretations Can Not Imply 'Quantum Immortality'

And in this paper he wrote,

The method of Theory Confirmation can be applied to the question of immortality. In
general, if we are immortal, there would be two classes of observations: Those made by
normal people within a normal lifespan, and those made in the 'afterlife'. For 'quantum
immortality' the 'afterlife' will be taken to mean those who find themselves to be much
older than a normal human lifespan.
If the 'afterlife' is infinite, then it will have infinitely more integral measure than the
normal life. Thus, the effective probability of finding oneself in a normal lifetime would
be zero. If there is no 'afterlife' then the effective probability of that would be unity. By
applying Bayesian reasoning, this implies that if one does find oneself in a normal
lifetime, as we do, there must be no infinite afterlife.


Which is an incredibly enlightening, and insightful thing to say.

I had to read that several times, slowly.
Great passage. It just highlights the difficulties you get into when you start applying actual infinities to reality.

Assuming infinity of worlds (or eternal recurrence) means that we could never have reached the present time/could not be alive in this universe (the 'effective probability would be zero').
But we have reached the present.. so there can be no infinity/eternal recurrence.

That's basically what he's saying except he's talking about immortality (and what I've been trying to say in this thread), and he's also using more technical and refined concepts.

 

[RedDEE]

I had to read that several times, slowly.
Great passage. It just highlights the difficulties you get into when you start applying actual infinities to reality.

Assuming infinity of worlds (or eternal recurrence) means that we could never have reached the present time/could not be alive in this universe (the 'effective probability would be zero').
But we have reached the present.. so there can be no infinity/eternal recurrence.

That's basically what he's saying (and what I've been trying to say in this thread), except he's using more technical and refined concepts.

Exactly! That entire paper is stating that same fact, over and over again, in highly technical terms. I had to go about it the hard way - I learned some incredibly technical terms and shit just to come at the simple conclusion you just stated. It's actually a very simple concept to understand. I think it's too simple. I think it's so simple, that it's overlooked and hard to understand.

I sit back, and watch these guys who don't understand this fact try to argue for eternal recurrence, and I just shake my head. I want to grab them by the collar and shake them and say WAKE UP!

For me, I understood in one snap. Like, It just 'came to me' and I understood! It was like OOOOOHHH, OKAY - I GET IT!

When you finally understand it, it's like a kid understanding 1+1=2. A whole new world opens up. This simple understanding solves so many paradoxes and riddles. When you understand, it's a low-level enlightenment.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

There might be something to this, actually.

Assume that Poincaré recurrence applies to the universe. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything will always happen identically - it could mean that reality repeats itself to the nearest possible degree endlessly. That could effectively mean that history will play out identically to the point of my birth each time, but that, for me, my actions and choices will differ each time, just as they will for you. The basic facts, up to the point of your birth, play out identically,and from there everything is subject to change. And it will be this way forever.

I am, actually, convinced that this is what it is. Which could be very cool for me actually- I was a very happy boy up until my father committed suicide, aged six.

If what I'm saying is true, the odds are strong that, on the next iteration, he won't kill himself; that was basically a freak event that turned me into a massively antisocial sociopath. I was extremely happy as a small child. I think, if he lives, I will become an extremely happy young adult also.

I am totally down with rolling the dice on this being the case.

Ive literally had and have that exact same theory, holy shit are you me?

 

[ExitStageLeft]

The thing is, if there are no true infinities, then the universe is bound, finite, and therefore subject to Poincare recurrence. If the universe is infinite, then it has infinite time to reproduce itself via quantum fluctuation after heat death. Either way the possibility of recurrence is real.

 

[RedDEE]

We would only have 'broken the cycle' if we assume that there is a cycle to begin with. No one has shown or demonstrated that there is.

Technically, there is not a cycle.

We are not moving in a circle. Circles do not exist in reality. This sounds like pseudo-science, but I found out it is true for myself.

Circles, and cycles are illusions. If a cycle existed, it would be never-ending. But there are no cycles. Only the illusions of cycles.

Think about a clock. A clock moves in a circle. However, everyday is a new day. The clock keeps moving from 1 to 12, but every day is not 'reset'. We are not living the same day over-and-over again. Clocks are liars.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Technically, there is not a cycle.

We are not moving in a circle. Circles do not exist in reality. This sounds like pseudo-science, but I found out it is true for myself.

Circles, and cycles are illusions. If a cycle existed, it would be never-ending. But there are no cycles. Only the illusions of cycles.

Think about a clock. A clock moves in a circle. However, everyday is a new day. The clock keeps moving from 1 to 12, but every day is not 'reset'. We are not living the same day over-and-over again. Clocks are liars.

Clocks lie, people die.

The reality of clocks can only be understood in the context of 4-dimensional spirals....

 

[RedDEE]

Clocks lie, people die.

The reality of clocks can only be understood in the context of 4-dimensional spirals....

Speaking of spirals...

 

[Wayfaerer]

Hawking believed in a big crunch so that would necessarily imply a limited universe with unlimited time. If we are to go by Hawking, what do you think that would imply?

 

[RedDEE]

Hawking believed in a big crunch so that would necessarily imply a limited universe with unlimited time. If we are to go by Hawking, what do you think that would imply?

Prove Hawking believed in a Big Crunch.

I'll prove he didn't believe in it.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

The thing is, if there are no true infinities, then the universe is bound, finite, and therefore subject to Poincare recurrence. If the universe is infinite, then it has infinite time to reproduce itself via quantum fluctuation after heat death. Either way the possibility of recurrence is real.

I understand your argument, it's clever, but I think it is possible to steer a boat between the scylla and charybdis you present by denying the possibility of actual infinities without thereby making the universe finite.

The universe can be potentially infinite into the future (and open), which isn't the same as being actually infinite. But that wouldn't make it 'finite' in the sense required for Poincare recurrence (i.e. having a finite volume, being a discrete system with a countable number of states).

Whichever way you look at it, eternal recurrence requires actual infinities, not just potential infinities, and actual infinities yield contradictions.

The past cannot be actually infinite as we could never have reached this point if it was, and the future cannot be actually infinite as it doesn't exist yet and so can only be a potential..

to reproduce itself via quantum fluctuation after heat death

This is the crucial question...so many unknowns..the supposed quantum fluctuations which would occur after heat death due to random local decreases in entropy are purely hypothetical...

...but even if they do occur, the question would also arise what it means exactly for the universe to 'reproduce itself'. It would be discontinuous (although I admit this is a problematic assertion) with this universe, therefore numerically distinct. It would also have completely new particles, so it might resemble this universe exactly, but only as a 'replica'..There is actually a paper written which tries to show, using the no-cloning theorem in quantum mechanics, that there cannot be an infinite number of exact copies of finite elements, but I'm not sure how relevant it is here:

A General No-Cloning Theorem for an infinite Multiverse
Author links open overlay panel Yvon Gauthier
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4877(14)60013-6

"In this paper, I formulate a general no-cloning theorem which covers the quantum-mechanical and the theoretical quantum information cases as well as the cosmological multiverse theory. However, the main argument is topological and does not involve the peculiar copier devices of the quantum-mechanical and information-theoretic approaches to the no-cloning thesis. It is shown that a combinatorial set-theoretic treatment of the mathematical and physical spacetime continuum in cosmological or quantum-mechanical terms forbids an infinite (countable or uncountable) number of exact copies of finite elements (states) in the uncountable multiverse cosmology. The historical background draws on ideas from Weyl to Conway and Kochen on the free will theorem in quantum mechanics..."


Anyway, under these conditions, to say that there would still be a continuous identity of consciousness holding between beings a, b, c etc, in universes A, B, C, etc, as if beings a, b, c, etc were numerically one and the same (which they cannot be, since only a can be identical with a, b with b, etc), would be a unjustified logical leap.

 

[RedDEE]

I understand your argument, it's clever, but I think it is possible to steer a boat between the scylla and charybdis you present by denying the possibility of actual infinities without thereby making the universe finite.

The universe can be potentially infinite into the future (and open), which isn't the same as being actually infinite. But that wouldn't make it 'finite' in the sense required for Poincare recurrence (i.e. having a finite volume, being a discrete system with a countable number of states).

Whichever way you look at it, eternal recurrence requires actual infinities, not just potential infinities.

The past cannot be actually infinite as we could never have reached this point if it was, and the future cannot be actually infinite as it doesn't exist yet and so can only be a potential..


This is the crucial question...so many unknowns..the supposed quantum fluctuations which would occur after heat death due to random local decreases in entropy are purely hypothetical...

...but even if they do occur, the question would also arise what it means exactly for the universe to 'reproduce itself'. It would be discontinuous (although I admit this is a problematic assertion) with this universe, therefore numerically distinct. It would also have completely new particles, so it might resemble this universe exactly, but only as a 'replica'..

Under these conditions, to say that there would still be a continuous identity of consciousness holding between beings a, b, c etc, in universes A, B, C, etc, as if beings a, b, c, etc were numerically one and the same (which they cannot be, since only a can be identical with a, b with b, etc), would be a unjustified logical leap.

DAMN you're a smart motherfucker. Are you secretly a suicidal physicist? Do you have a degree? Have you written papers? Are you famous?

Answer this question: How much does your knowledge of physics and meta-physics contribute to your desire to CTB?