Is there even any solid evidence that the theory of Eternal Recurrence could be true?
>>282773
It's not a theory and it's not supposed to be true.
It's just supposed to inspire you to enjoy life as much as possible.
It's supposed to be a thought experiment.
That said there are cosmological models that do say that the universe will "recur eternally". If determinism is true than there is the possibility the universe could occur the exact same way every time.
>>282774
>enjoy
accept
the behavior towards the eternal return as if it were assured to happen would lead to the destruction of aversion and avidity, so it would lead to unshakable equanimity.
>>283175
Is this a meme now?
it's meant materialistically, that even if life on this planet ended, somewhere in the endless universe there could be a similar conditions and all history repeated there. it originally appeared in a book by Eugen Dühring who discarded it as a "depressing thought". nietzsche disliked dühring and probably because of his book developed eternal recurrence as a "hammer" against nihilists and what he perceived as shallow optimists (positivists, socialists, etc). zarathustra took this hammer and metaphorically sculpted übermensch out of normal quality human material.
>>282773
Does idea idea of this being true keep anyone else up at night? Even if my life were close to perfect it would just seem to be a horrible fate to bear.
>>283255
That's the point, it's supposed to inspire you to live a life worth living.
>>283261
I'm aware. What I'm saying is even if my life were totally "worth it" it would still be horrible to repeat an infinite amount of times.
We all know what will happen if we give a little shake to a glass half-filled with water or some other liquid: a little "wave" will form on one side and travel to the other, and the disturbance will gradually die down as the kinetic energy from our shake is dissipated by means of this disturbance, and radiated to the walls of the glass and the surrounding air. The end result, after a sufficient length of time, will be a flat and still water surface, until we decide to give the glass another shake at some later time. Certainly none of us would expect that the wave and the resulting disturbance could "recur" on their own, without any external input, and would rightly regard such an event as "magic" (which is to say as impossible), and anyone who predicted and expected it as a "retard". But what seems like common sense on a local scale, becomes NONSENSE when we try to apply it at the scale of the universe, since at that scale there exists neither an "outside" from which energy can be initially transferred, nor to which it can be later dissipated. Any "disturbance" at that level then, will have to be, not only necessarily inherent in the system (ruling out any "external", "transcendental" influence), but also, and for the same reason, necessarily eternally recurring.
I have just proved both the existence of the eternal recurrence and the non-existence of "transcendental" beings and causes, and whoever denies my proof either doesn't understand elementary physics, or what the word "universe" means, or both. End of story.
>>283286
In fact a mini-"recurrence" can be observed even in our limited water-glass experiment, since the initial wave will "recur", even if in significantly diminished form, for as many oscillations as it takes for its energy to be completely dissipated. Obviously, if dissipation were impossible, the wave would recur, in identical fashion, forever. That's how simple it is to understand, and prove, the eternal recurrence. Isn't it hilarious then how every single Nietzsche scholar of the past 130 years has questioned this blatantly self-evident concept? (self-evident, obviously, once Nietzsche has explained it to you). Some of them went as far as to try to prove that Nietzsche's philosophy could stand, largely unaffected, even without it! That's how convinced they were of its falsity! And yet it's right there, in perfectly unambiguous terms, in the man's notebooks: “The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence". That's all it took to send me on the path of creating this little proof and thought-experiment that I just explained here. Maybe philosophical scholars simply haven't learned elementary physics? And maybe people who have learned elementary physics do not read philosophy? That's certainly my take on the educational background and intellectual habits of all those people.
>>283290
— William Plank, on the other hand (author of the Quantum Nietzsche), went the opposite way. He was so convinced of the reality of the concept (which is to say that he was so FASCINATED by it, and WANTED it to be true so badly), and so motivated by Nietzsche's references (in his notes) of his impending "proof" of it (a proof that never materialized, beyond the little snippet of it that I just quoted — which pretty much amounts to a proof, as I have explained, for anyone who understands even a little physics), that he set out to create his own proof, a bizarre extrapolation on the basis of Eigen's and Winkler's glass-bead games which, according to Plank, "cannot be disproved". And indeed I can't disprove it, if for no other reason than because I can't understand it. I can't understand, that is, how the laws (or lack of laws) that govern the configurations of beads in a glass-bead game are a proof of anything, least of all of the eternal recurrence; while Plank seems to think that merely repeating a few dozens times that something has been proved proves it. On top of the fact that, even if his proof is somehow valid, it's still superfluous next to my immeasurably simpler and more commonsensical one, never mind Nietzsche's ultra-succinct one-line note that says everything to those who know anything, the complete obliviousness towards which is what betrays that Plank hasn't really understood anything.
>>283291
Is there a link to an album of these spurdos?
