Eternal recurrence and multiverses
Scott H
times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
universe begin at the death of this one?
It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
abstraction itself?
chazwin
I wouldn't worry about it. Such an idea is beyond evidential support.
There is no means by which you can be aware of the other occurrences
as the point is that the universe repeats itself exactly an
unimaginable number of times.
Why not try Hugh Everett III's many universes interpretation? At least
that was invented to answer a scientific problem. The eternal
recurrence is nothing more than a bit of fluff.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
You are half there :-), in as much as your relative mind kicked in
with the reference 'many times'
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
The "now" feeling is a sign of the wakening observer. To be or not to
be, was 'Shakies' way of trying to get the point across.
Once such reality has 'registered', the past and future dissapear,
like 'scotch mist'. What remains is a connection to your own creation.
You cause your own effect.>
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
> universe begin at the death of this one?
It doesnt. A better image is that of simultaniously existing planes
through which one 'travels' in a state of consciousness. We each
'visit' such states even befor we realize what is happening.Sometimes
in sleep, sometimes during waking times. A good example is that
undeniable feeling of 'irrational bliss'. Of course the biologists
will try to explain that away. They usually get the cause confised
with the effect :-)
>
> It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
> universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
> in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
> including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
> universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
> properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
> such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
Fact is, we could all be obliterated and reformed within a nano
second, and not be aware of such phenomena.
People who report oob experiences, always refer to a 'seamless'
transformation.
>
> What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
> abstraction itself?
Think of an infinite quantity of matter vibrating at an infinite
number of frequencies. hen what of the observer?
Thereby lies not the 'theory of everything, but the actualization of
the creative nature , which is 'you'.
Poetically, the creator created created creators.This is why masters
tell us 'reality is within'.
The group creates and recognises there own creations as 'something
mysterious'. Science is now able to play with multi dimension, and is
mystified by the quantum reality of this.
Im always amused by the definition of 'mystic' in this and many
forums. It is the 'mind of space matter and time' that deals only in
questions. Driven by 'mystery', whereas the 'mystic' wakes up to
reality. The individual 'seer' means nothing to the "mystery seeker".
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On 9 May, 00:40, "Scott H" <nospam> wrote:
> > abstraction itself?
>
> I wouldn't worry about it. Such an idea is beyond evidential support.
So is self awareness.Worry is spawned by the inherant 'need to know'.
> There is no means by which you can be aware of the other occurrences
> as the point is that the universe repeats itself exactly an
> unimaginable number of times.
On your basis, you have no means of knowing this is not the case...
> Why not try Hugh Everett III's many universes interpretation? At least
> that was invented to answer a scientific problem. The eternal
> recurrence is nothing more than a bit of fluff.
Oh the wonders of reality within such 'fluff.
That could be a modern version of the 'angels on a pinhead' koan :-)))
BOfL'
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ZerkonX
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely
> many times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats
> itself.
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
You are looking for a concept here, correct?
Maybe the first place to start is here:
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it.
Hinduism, although a religion, introduced a more cyclical or circular
model of everything. Then Buddhism shoved this concept, then Taoism.
All of this as a way of saying that linearity has been challenged from
ancient times. Interestingly, to them this "now" feeling is not linear at
all. Now, it seems that some branches of theoretical physics
are taking a look at this.
So, 'reborn'. Off-spring is the parent reborn in non-exactitude. Can
there be such thing as an absolute exact copy of anything? Reborn may not
actually be entirely the same but rather entirely similar.
J Jones
recurrence.
chazwin
wrote:
> On May 9, 6:10 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9 May, 00:40, "Scott H" <nospam> wrote:
> > > abstraction itself?
>
> > I wouldn't worry about it. Such an idea is beyond evidential support.
>
> So is self awareness.Worry is spawned by the inherant 'need to know'.
>
> > There is no means by which you can be aware of the other occurrences
> > as the point is that the universe repeats itself exactly an
> > unimaginable number of times.
>
> On your basis, you have no means of knowing this is not the case...
Yes you twat - as we have discussed a million times on this NG the
burden of proof is on the kook who wants to assert the existence of
the tooth fairy and other incohernet gibberish and not on the person
that rejects it as crapology.
>
> > Why not try Hugh Everett III's many universes interpretation? At least
> > that was invented to answer a scientific problem. The eternal
> > recurrence is nothing more than a bit of fluff.
>
> Oh the wonders of reality within such 'fluff.
>
> That could be a modern version of the 'angels on a pinhead' koan :-)))
>
> BOfL'
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jonathan
"Scott H" <nospam> wrote in message
news:zMqdnclC2PBAD77V...@supernews.com...
> Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
Almost everything in the universe is the result of cyclic processes.
Especially higher forms of order such as life and intelligence.
So it would be logical to assume our universe is the result
of a cyclic process. Where the death of one universe leads
to the creation of another.
In fact, the cyclic model is becoming the state of the art.
It's a rather new idea by perhaps the two leading
cosmologists of the day, Steinhardt and Turoc.
Steinhardt
Princeton Physics Dept
See, "A quintessential intro into Dark Energy"
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
The Endless Universe
http://endlessuniverse.net/
> times and that all of history, including our own lives, repeats itself.
The butterful effect shows that each iteration or cycle is destined
to pick up some noise or error with each pass. So an exact
repetition is absurd with even a casual examination.
Similar in form and function perhaps, but like snowflakes
no two things will ever exactly repeat.
>
> Although I only learned of the term a year ago, I wondered if eternal
> recurrence, if real, were in some way responsible for the "now" feeling.
>
> I have some difficulty understanding the linearity of it. Why must the next
> universe begin at the death of this one?
You have to understand that things are changing very fast in this
field these days. What we don't know far exceeds what we know.
The universe is now thought to evolve, but not just in the generic
sense of becoming more ordered over time. But in the ...Darwinian
sense. The universal constants evolve and adapt over time. Dark
energy and dark matter emerge at different times, guiding the cyclic
evolution of the universe.
To quote Steinhardt, one of the founders of the inflationary theory
and now the cyclic model.
"Most of the energy in the universe is not matter." For its first 300
years, physics has focused on the properties of matter and
radiation, including dark matter. Now we know that they
represent less than 30% of the composition of the universe.
The rest consists of something we know virtually nothing about.
Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive.
We are probably the last generation to have been taught that
"gravity always attracts," a notion which has been presented
as a basic fact of nature for hundreds of years. We are now
aware that gravity can repel, as well. We must rewrite the
textbooks to explain that the gravitationally self-attracting matter
with which we are familiar is the minority in the universe today and
for the indefinite future.
We live at a special moment in cosmic history, the transition between
a decelerating, matter-dominated universe and an accelerating, dark
energy dominated universe.
The recent proposal of a "cyclic" universe presents a whole new outlook on
cosmic history in which dark energy plays a central role (Steinhardt & Turok,
2002a, 2002b). in this model, the conventional cosmic history is turned
topsy-turvy. The big bang is not the beginning of time. Rather, it is a bridge
to a pre-existing contracting era. The Universe undergoes a sequence of cycles
in which it contracts in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding
big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between.
The big bang" is moderated. The temperature and density of the universe
do not become infinite at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed
a finite bound (about a trillion trillion degrees).
Dark energy recurs as the dominant form of energy every cycle roughly
15 billion years after each bang. and it replaces two of the key roles of
inflation. Although it causes the universe to accelerate at an pace
100 orders of magnitude slower than inflation, by maintaining the
acceleration for a trillion years or so, the dark energy homogenizes and
flattens the universe. In particular, it is the dark energy of a
cycle ago that made the universe homogeneous and at prior
to our own big bang,
A second critical feature of the dark energy is that it is not stable.
It naturally decreases with time as the universe expands. As a result, the
acceleration ultimately stops and the universe begins to decelerate.
It eventually triggers a period of contraction, during which
there is the quantum generation of a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of
perturbations that accounts for the temperature fluctuations of the cosmic
microwave background and large scale structure.
Finally, the dark energy is responsible for insuring that the cyclic evolution
is an attractor solution to the evolution equations. If random fluctuations
kick the universe away from the ideal cyclic evolution, the period of
dark energy domination red shifts" away the transient behavior and
drives the universe back towards the regular cyclic solution.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf
>
> It seems more natural to me to think of infinitely many copies of this
> universe existing in a more ideal realm. I say this because all quantities
> in the universe are relative. You could scale all physical constants,
> including the speed of light, by some factor and get basically the same
> universe with the same phenomena, and we'd never tell the difference. The
> properties we notice are more abstract. We could imagine infinitely many
> such copies of this universe existing, not necessarily in linear order.
>
> What if what is usually called eternal recurrence is better accounted for by
> abstraction itself?
The big mistake being made today is to try to understand the universe
through its simplest components, forces or 'abstractions'. Such as
some elegant or grand equation.
The properties of the universe are best seen by the most ....complex...
the universe has to offer.....LIFE. Not the simplest.....particles and such.
We wouldn't exist if we didn't have the ability to reproduce ourselves.
So why would it be any different for the universe?
The only kind of universe that ...can exist.. is one that
can create other universes. Or so I believe.
Jonathan
s
>
>
>
chazwin
> "Scott H" <nospam> wrote in message
>
> news:zMqdnclC2PBAD77V...@supernews.com...
>
> > Eternal recurrence is the idea that the universe is reborn infinitely many
>
> Almost everything in the universe is the result of cyclic processes.
> Especially higher forms of order such as life and intelligence.
> So it would be logical to assume our universe is the result
> of a cyclic process. Where the death of one universe leads
> to the creation of another.
DING!
Sorry - you are not getting the point. This idea suggests that
everything happens again exactly the same way forever.
Actually there are no cyclic processes in the universe at all. All
things act within the limits of their own nature, where they appear
cyclic, such as planetary motion, this is actully a linear process
which is in a state of repitition. No planet follows exactly the same
course each time as each planet's mass varies very slightly with each
circuit.
You need to understand the word logic first before you make logical
claims. Logic does not lead to any claim which involves an induction
as induction is limited to habit, not to a necessary conclusion.
The evidence from the universe is that things are getting futher
appart, energy is dissapating into heat, and there is no know
phenomenon that will avoid the heat death of the universe to result is
a new big bang. Multiple, cyclic and reccurrent universes are nothing
more than wish fulfillment and are not in any way evidential.
>
> In fact, the cyclic model is becoming the state of the art.
> It's a rather new idea by perhaps the two leading
> cosmologists of the day, Steinhardt and Turoc.
>
> Steinhardt
> Princeton Physics Dept
> See, "A quintessential intro into Dark Energy"http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
>
> The Endless Universehttp://endlessuniverse.net/
knucmo
> You need to understand the word logic first before you make logical
> claims. Logic does not lead to any claim which involves an induction
> as induction is limited to habit, not to a necessary conclusion.
But just because a phenomenon has not been noticed, that only proves
that the conditions of, or for that phenomenon have not yet transpired
in experience, but it does not prove that will not occur in the future.