time loop fear

[esse_est_percipi]

So I keep coming across this theory/idea that we have already lived the same life a number of times before, and when we die we will have to keep living the same life over and over indefinitely. (not necessarily related to whether we ctb or not, though sometimes people link it to ctb'ing, which I think is a scare tactic and cruelly causes more anguish and worry for people who are already suffering.) I actually find this the scariest theory of what happens after we die. For me, it is worse than eternal nothingness, worse than reincarnation (at least traditional reincarnation is reincarnation as a different being), perhaps worse than some hell God could send you to.

Nietzsche called this idea the eternal recurrence of the same and I think it is also found in ancient egyptian myths and indian religious philosophy. In cosmology it is called the big bounce model of the universe, though I'm unsure whether the expansion and collapse cycle is supposed to produce a completely different universe, only a slightly different one, or exactly the same one. It would depend on whether the beginning of each cycle produces exactly the same initial quantum configurations of particles and energy, but I don't see why that would have to be the case.

I find this idea really disturbing and terrifying, even though it makes no difference to the present given that whether it's true or not we don't remember any of the previous iterations anyway.

I find it disturbing in a philosophical sense maybe, as I can't see what ultimate meaning there is in such an existential setup. It seems absurd and nihilistic, like the sisyphus myth but on a universal scale. There doesn't seem to be any purpose to it, no learning curve or possible spiritual progression. It just doesn't seem to square well with the fact of suffering or morality. It's all very well for people who have nice happy lives and never experience a day of depression, but what about those who suffer and have a bad lot in life? Are they just destined to live out the same miserable existence over and over because of some eternal cosmic lottery which decreed that they have the same conscious experiences as the same being on a playlist loop forever?

Maybe if the repetition of the universe is not tied to the identity of conscious experience, that might change things. So, the next universe might pan out in exactly the same way materially, but instead of experiencing it as x at time t1, in universe+1 I experience it as y at time t2, etc. Until I experience it from every possible conscious point of view. From the point of view of every monad, Leibniz's indivisible conscious building blocks of the universe. Obviously I don't know what the ultimate purpose here could be, but at least it introduces a crucial difference within the repetition of sameness, which might hold the key to some wider purpose. This sounds like reincarnation but it's not necessarily tied to the concept of karma or any other buddhist principle.

Anyway, whatever is the case, this is the one afterlife theory/theory of existence that I hope isn't true, as I initially described it.
And even though there is no evidence for it being true, I hate being reminded of it because I cannot completely rule it out from a logical point of view.

 

[WillOxyWork]

I've looked into the Big Bounce theory. Stephen Hawking didn't think it was valid at all. There would need to be a mechanism by which the universe retracts, and there is no known model for that. As far as we know, the universe will continue in accelerated expansion until it dies a heat death.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I've looked into the Big Bounce theory. Stephen Hawking didn't think it was valid at all. There would need to be a mechanism by which the universe retracts, and there is no known model for that. As far as we know, the universe will continue in accelerated expansion until it dies a heat death.

I'm glad there is not much scientific evidence for big bounce. Expansion and eternal heat death, please.

 

[Pan]

Nietzche's idea of eternal recurrence of the same was meant more as an existential challenge, not as a philosophical truth. Respectfully, Indian philosophy emphasizes reincarnation, not recurrence.

 

[SpontaneouslyCombust]

That's awful. I hope it isn't true. I'd like to cease to exist forever after I die.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Nietzche's idea of eternal recurrence of the same was meant more as an existential challenge, not as a philosophical truth. Respectfully, Indian philosophy emphasizes reincarnation, not recurrence.

I think I pointed out Nietzsche's intent (or my interpretation of his intent) behind positing the eternal recurrence in an earlier post in another thread in response to something you wrote...You seem to have taken my point against you there, then used it against me here :) i.e. https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/scared-of-whats-going-to-happen-after-death.43593/post-795924 "I think this was more an existential thought experiment..."

Still, some scholars believe Nietzsche was serious about the eternal recurrence theory, that it was actually a cosmological truth, or at least a plausible hypothesis.

I take your point about reincarnation in Indian philosophy, but the idea of cyclical recurrence is also present. The'wheel of time' idea is found in buddhism and hinduism. But it's not an exact time loop, although perhaps the idea that the universe is destined to repeat itself after a conflagration is found in hinduism? I'm not sure.

That's awful. I hope it isn't true. I'd like to cease to exist forever after I die.

I think it's more of a scary idea than a likely scenario.
I'm sure the ultimate truth about existence and the universe is much more complex and meaningful.
Or perhaps not--perhaps there is just one universe which ends in heat death forever and that's it, no repetition, no ultimate meaning, which would still be better than an endless repetition.

 

[ohhgeeitsme]

Strange. I was just thinking about this yesterday. While I think the most likely scenario is that we just die and that's it (which I like), there's no way for us to know with a hundred percent certainty what really happens. What you have described seems to be one of the worst, especially for people like us. Frightening, indeed. Even when I was a child, the idea of living for eternity scared the hell out of me (and I was a happy kid). When I grew older and became an atheist, the idea that we simply cease to exist brought great relief for me. As I grow even older, I've turned agnostic once again since I have to admit that there is no concrete evidence of there being nothing beyond this either. So I think it would be foolish for me to claim it's the absolute truth, although like I said, seems most likely to me. All I know is that living in a time loop would be an absolute nightmare, a hell on it's own. No bueno.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Strange. I was just thinking about this yesterday. While I think the most likely scenario is that we just die and that's it (which I like), there's no way for us to know with a hundred percent certainty what really happens. What you have described seems to be one of the worst, especially for people like us. Frightening, indeed. Even when I was a child, the idea of living for eternity scared the hell out of me (and I was a happy kid). When I grew older and became an atheist, the idea that we simply cease to exist brought great relief for me. As I grow even older, I've turned agnostic once again since I have to admit that there is no concrete evidence of there being nothing beyond this either. So I think it would be foolish for me to claim it's the absolute truth, although like I said, seems most likely to me. All I know is that living in a time loop would be an absolute nightmare, a hell on it's own. No bueno.

I totally agree. It's a horrifying idea, even though we are completely unaware of it even if it is true.
I hope that either we die and that's it, eternal nothingness, or that if there is something after death, it's better than life on earth, or at least free of any kind of suffering.

 

[falloutcarter13]

This was a really good read, thanks for sharing it! My super scientific theory is the Dark Tower theory, where we start over the same life with one minor difference and then ride the butterfly effect. Well, at least I wouldn't mind if it happened. I just try not to debate what comes next, because we won't know until it actually happens, and it happens for all of us regardless of when we go. I laugh at myself when I think about myself in connection with the cosmos, like the 65 years I have left as a human at maximum makes one shit of difference in the grand scheme of thing

 

[esse_est_percipi]

This was a really good read, thanks for sharing it! My super scientific theory is the Dark Tower theory, where we start over the same life with one minor difference and then ride the butterfly effect. Well, at least I wouldn't mind if it happened. I just try not to debate what comes next, because we won't know until it actually happens, and it happens for all of us regardless of when we go. I laugh at myself when I think about myself in connection with the cosmos, like the 65 years I have left as a human at maximum makes one shit of difference in the grand scheme of thing

Thanks, I thought I'd try to articulate one of my (irrational, non-evidence-based) afterlife fears.
Is that DT theory in reference to stephen king's dark tower books? I haven't read that series of books but I'm assuming it explores the butterfly effect from the perspective of different characters?

That theory doesn't scare me as much as having to live exactly the same life on a loop forever. At least the small difference DT theory introduces the possibility of some kind of learning/progression curve and maybe some wider cosmic purpose. The small differences could even constitute parallel universes based on complicated quantum effects which I don't understand.

I know what you mean about looking at yourself compared to the grand scheme of things. It's like we have all these fears and worries about death and what could come after, as if our personal ego is all that matters and the universe revolves around us. But maybe we really don't matter as much as we think, in connection to the entire history of the universe.

 

[falloutcarter13]

Yeah I was kinda being jokey about that series of books. It's about a mystical interdimensional cowboy fella that goes on a quest to save all of existence. On the off chance someone reads this who plans to be around long enough to read seven doorstoppers, I'll not spoil it lol. But you basically got the gist ;)

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Yeah I was kinda being jokey about that series of books. It's about a mystical interdimensional cowboy fella that goes on a quest to save all of existence. On the off chance someone reads this who plans to be around long enough to read seven doorstoppers, I'll not spoil it lol. But you basically got the gist ;)

Yeah, I assumed you weren't being super-serious in posting the DT theory lol It's all pure speculation, but fun to think through ideas like this, I guess.

I've only read The Stand by stephen king, which I thought was pretty good.

I know this seems kinda random, but your picture (well, the top half of your face) has looked familiar since I first saw it, but I couldn't quite make out who it looked like.
Now I think I have it...Devon Larratt the armwrestler. Or maybe not, I don't know.

 

[falloutcarter13]

Yeah, I assumed you weren't being super-serious in posting the DT theory lol It's all pure speculation, but fun to think through ideas like this, I guess.

I've only read The Stand by stephen king, which I thought was pretty good.

I know this seems kinda random, but your picture (well, the top half of your face) has looked familiar since I first saw it, but I couldn't quite make out who it looked like.
Now I think I have it...Devon Larratt the armwrestler. Or maybe not, I don't know.

Lmao, busted. I lost my last four arm-wrasslin matches and I just cain't take this shit no more. ='D

 

[Pan]

I think I pointed out Nietzsche's intent (or my interpretation of his intent) behind positing the eternal recurrence in an earlier post in another thread in response to something you wrote...You seem to have taken my point against you there, then used it against me here :) i.e. https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/scared-of-whats-going-to-happen-after-death.43593/post-795924 "I think this was more an existential thought experiment..."

Still, some scholars believe Nietzsche was serious about the eternal recurrence theory, that it was actually a cosmological truth, or at least a plausible hypothesis.

I take your point about reincarnation in Indian philosophy, but the idea of cyclical recurrence is also present. The'wheel of time' idea is found in buddhism and hinduism. But it's not an exact time loop, although perhaps the idea that the universe is destined to repeat itself after a conflagration is found in hinduism? I'm not sure.

I think it's more of a scary idea than a likely scenario.
I'm sure the ultimate truth about existence and the universe is much more complex and meaningful.
Or perhaps not--perhaps there is just one universe which ends in heat death forever and that's it, no repetition, no ultimate meaning, which would still be better than an endless repetition.

Used it against you!?what witchcraft if this? Simply because I disagreed with you gives you no reason to to disagree with me. Nietzche him self would disagree with your. disagreement. Please learn to tolerate what others say without taking it personally."some scholars" do not agree or disagree with Nietzche. Again, Nietzche did NOT mean that this was to be taken literally. For him, it was an existential challenge, not a matter of scientific/philosphical truth.
While we are on this subject, how different is Hindu philosophy from, say, the idea of eternal recurrence. Both emphasize the cyclical nature of time/space.
You May be "worried to death", but all the worrying in the world will fail to save you. Try to OWN your worry;name,y, try to make it a part of your identity/ yourself. That way, you can hopefully transform it into strength.

 

[Pan]

There is no need to apologize; apologies are irrelevant here, particularly when it concerns Nietzche's complicated, almost maddening thought. My advice is that you consider reading Pierre Klossowski's "Nietzche: the vicious circle".

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Used it against you!?what witchcraft if this? Simply because I disagreed with you gives you no reason to to disagree with me. Nietzche him self would disagree with your. disagreement. Please learn to tolerate what others say without taking it personally."some scholars" do not agree or disagree with Nietzche. Again, Nietzche did NOT mean that this was to be taken literally. For him, it was an existential challenge, not a matter of scientific/philosphical truth.
While we are on this subject, how different is Hindu philosophy from, say, the idea of eternal recurrence. Both emphasize the cyclical nature of time/space.
You May be "worried to death", but all the worrying in the world will fail to save you. Try to OWN your worry;name,y, try to make it a part of your identity/ yourself. That way, you can hopefully transform it into strength.

I think you may have misunderstood my intent, which may be my fault too, due to clumsy use of language...
I absolutely tolerate what other say and try not to take things personally, especially on a site like this.

"You have reached the apex of existence as human; you can go no farther. You will return as you, to infinity. Not only will you reborn as human, you will be reborn as You. Apart from Hindu belief, even German Philospher Nietzsche. articulated this"

So, that's what you said in an original post in a different thread to this (the "scared of what's going to happen after death" one). It seems like you were using Nietzsche to support your ideas about existence as returning as you infinitely.Then I said I thought Nietzsche was merely using eternal recurrence as an existential thought experiment in a wider atheistic scheme of trying to find value and meaning in an indifferent universe, not as a scientific theory.

Then further up in this thread, you said "Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence was meant more as an existential challenge, not as an existential truth", in response to my original post in this thread further up. It seems that this statement is inconsistent with your original post about Nietzsche. But maybe I have completely misunderstood, and my mind is unraveling.

I just assumed you were taking what I said earlier to you, and then quoting it back at me, which is absolutely fine. No big deal. If not, then I apologise.

As for Nietzsche not meaning for it to be taken literally...I know that's what I said I thought earlier on, but some Nietzsche scholars disagree, and there is some textual evidence, and in his letters and correspondence (though I would need to go back and verify that) that he was serious about the theory in cosmological terms. Nietzsche even tried to learn about all the up-to-date cosmology of his day to see if there was any scientific evidence for it. But being a philosopher and not a scientist, the more plausible interpretation is that of eternal recurrence as thought experiment to challenge the reader on a visceral level.

I am curious as to what you meant when you said "all the worrying in the world will fail to save you.." I don't mean to be blunt, but you don't know the first thing about me, and am a bit baffled why you seem so defensive and borderline aggressive.
Considering you are on a site like this, I assume not all is well with you (as with every other member), so I hope we can just put all this behind us, and I sincerely wish you the best.

 

[Pan]

That's awful. I hope it isn't true. I'd like to cease to exist forever after I die.

That, in my humble opinion (and it IS humble) is an impossibility. We come from somewhere; we will move on to another somewhere; meanwhile, the cycle will evolve into an epicycle of varying width and radius. You are you forever. The idea of eternal nothingness is pure bollocks, if I may use the word. Simply because you will recur again does not necessarily mean that you will live your life exactly as you lived it. Look at death instead as a recurrence of endless possibilities. I do NOT believe in karma; we pay now, in this life. When we die, the bill is marked PAID IN FULL.

 

[Pan]

Defensive? Borderline Aggressive? Help!, How so? When I indicated Nietzche articulated this idea, I did not mean (nor did Nietzche) that recurrence would mean in the Exact Same Way. I was neither being defensive nor borderline aggressive as you put it. At NO point was I the least bit defensive. These are complex issues that raise more complex issues and so on and so forth. Try to avoid complicating these matters with issues of ego, if you can help it.

 

[inactive]

I never had this fear until I started browsing this forum, lmao.

 

[Pan]

But what is there to fear? Living again as you may involve better decisions, better health, better plans. Loops, while loops, still vary in size, diameter, radius, etc.

 

[falloutcarter13]

Defensive? Borderline Aggressive? Help!, How so? When I indicated Nietzche articulated this idea, I did not mean (nor did Nietzche) that recurrence would mean in the Exact Same Way. I was neither being defensive nor borderline aggressive as you put it. At NO point was I the least bit defensive. These are complex issues that raise more complex issues and so on and so forth. Try to avoid complicating these matters with issues of ego, if you can help it.

Dude not to jump your case, but you're kind of escalating this to a place it doesn't need to go...he wrote you a whole damn book, and you picked out the one single thing that could be possibly perceived as insulting to focus on and reply to. We're all sensitive, in-pain creatures here and of course we're all gonna get our back hairs up when somebody tries to pile on...but that's not what @worried_to_death is doing here, I can almost promise you that. Its just a scholarly disagreement that could easily turn into a compromise if you don't let it get personal. Nobody's insulting you, he just was saying how he perceived your messages, that's all. I wish you very well, trust me, I know what its like for a minor disagreement to feel like a full scale assault on your very soul, when you're in this state. Don't let this bother you if you can help it, bud.

 

[Pan]

It does'nt bother me at all, friend, that is why I told him that his apologies are irrelevant. This is also whyI told him egos are not important here. After all, we are dealing with complex, even maddening ideas yes? I was in no way offended. What level am I taking this to?

 

[esse_est_percipi]

(nor did Nietzche) that recurrence would mean in the Exact Same Way.

I think Nietzsche did mean in the exact same way, that's the whole point of it as a thought experiment imo. That's why he defines it as the "heaviest weight" imaginable, and a "horrifying" idea.

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'" [The Gay Science, §341]

Maybe he modified it and refined it in later works, but this passage in the gay science he seems to be saying that eternal recurrence means in the exact same way.

I accept that you didn't mean in the exact same way.

"Defensive? Borderline Aggressive? Help!, How so?"

"Nietzche him self would disagree with your. disagreement". How do you know this? Can you provide textual evidence that this is the case? If not, you just seem to be arguing for the sake or arguing. This is just one-upmanship.
"Please learn to tolerate what others say without taking it personally." Why did you assume I was being intolerant and taking things personally? I never said you didn't have the right to say what you think, and I never insulted you in any way. This is just passive-aggressive behaviour, or at least, this is how it came across to me.
"You May be "worried to death", but all the worrying in the world will fail to save you". Again, I'm not sure what you meant by this...is it just a general statement, a snide remark, or something else?
"Try to avoid complicating these matters with issues of ego, if you can help it." Again, implying that I'm the one with "issues of ego", which may be the case, but I could equally level that accusation against you.

Tbh, I didn't come on this forum to discuss Nietzsche. I just made an innocent remark in an earlier thread in response to you, and now for some reason this all seems to have got a bit out of hand. (partly my fault).


Anyway, I personally joined SS because I'm looking to ctb soon, and I'm looking for like-minded people to discuss these issues with, and to get more information on methods, etc. I didn't join to have weirdly passive-aggressive discussions about points of contention in Nietzsche.
I'm done with this world, Nietzsche or no Nietzsche.

If you want to talk about something other than Nietzsche, just a normal conversation, or you want to vent or tell me about your issues, I'm happy to listen, just PM me. Otherwise, I wish you the best.

 

[Pan]

I was not making a snide remark when I said all the worrying in the world will fail to save you. It is a fact, no more, no less. Let's be done with this, yes? It's getting a little icky.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Dude not to jump your case, but you're kind of escalating this to a place it doesn't need to go...he wrote you a whole damn book, and you picked out the one single thing that could be possibly perceived as insulting to focus on and reply to. We're all sensitive, in-pain creatures here and of course we're all gonna get our back hairs up when somebody tries to pile on...but that's not what @worried_to_death is doing here, I can almost promise you that. Its just a scholarly disagreement that could easily turn into a compromise if you don't let it get personal. Nobody's insulting you, he just was saying how he perceived your messages, that's all. I wish you very well, trust me, I know what its like for a minor disagreement to feel like a full scale assault on your very soul, when you're in this state. Don't let this bother you if you can help it, bud.

Thanks for understanding.
I probably shouldn't have pursued the discussion to be honest, it was no big deal. I mean, I don't know anything about @Pan, and maybe I was misinterpreting some things he/she said.

I was not making a snide remark when I said all the worrying in the world will fail to save you. It is a fact, no more, no less. Let's be done with this, yes? It's getting a little icky.

Ok, I didn't think you were. I am just mentally not in a great place right now. Let's move on.

 

[falloutcarter13]

Thanks for understanding.
I probably shouldn't have pursued the discussion to be honest, it was no big deal. I mean, I don't know anything about @Pan, and maybe I was misinterpreting some things he/she said.

We all do it. Well, most of us lol. Its so hard to understand my own thoughts and ideas about all of this...when I can't express them properly, I get frustrated in general. And then someone makes a comment that's worded in a way that feels wrong, and I try to let them know how it made me feel, and then they take it wrong because they're probably feeling something similar and they come back at me...its a recipe for a storm. Cloudy with a chance of shitblizzard. I personally just need to get better at accepting that I'm going to be misunderstood here from time to time and that the commentor probably didn't mean anything by their comment, no matter how its worded. Unless they're clearly just an asshole, which i've run into lol (not you, @Pan!) Anyway that's what I thought I saw happening, and you've been so reasonable, I knew you didn't mean any harm and I'm sure @Pan didn't either, just a misunderstanding picking up speed toward a wall lol.

 

[Pan]

Neither am I (in a good place mentally, that is). And on that note, tally-ho!

 

[falloutcarter13]

Neither am I (in a good place mentally, that is). And on that note, tally-ho!

((hugs)) best wishes Pan, if you need to talk my PMs are always open!

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Neither am I (in a good place mentally, that is). And on that note, tally-ho!

Hopefully speak soon (not about Nietzsche) :) . toodle-oo.

 

[esoragoto]

I've looked into the Big Bounce theory. Stephen Hawking didn't think it was valid at all. There would need to be a mechanism by which the universe retracts, and there is no known model for that. As far as we know, the universe will continue in accelerated expansion until it dies a heat death.

Heat death, and then a presumably infinite amount of "time" (insofar as the word can have meaning in a universe with essentially no action) for quantum events to sloooooooooowly (years measured in exponents, or stacked exponents) set things up for another big bang

However the universe ends up - ripped, crunched, stalled, exhausted, whatever - with an presumably infinite amount of empty time afterwards, it can have all the trillions upon quadrillions upon googleplextillions of years it needs for tiny quantum events to nudge it into another bang. No reason to think the next iteration would go anywhere like this one did, though I suppose if it keeps going onto infinity you'd eventually get this same universe again