Musings on the Nietzschean concept of "eternal recurrence"

[MustaphaTheMond]

I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and what particularly struck me were his writings about the "eternal return", "amor fati" or "eternal recurrence" of things. This concept that, given time is infinite whereas the number of possible states are finite, events will recur again and again infinitely (such as me typing this very sentence) seems to be almost eerily echoed by some theories in physics and mathematics.

In mathematics, the Poincare recurrence theorem states that "a system whose dynamics are volume-preserving and which is confined to a finite spatial volume will, after a sufficiently long time, return to an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of its initial state". Indeed, such a mathematical truth supports Nietzsche's belief that "in an infinite period of time, every possible combination would at some time be attained".

Equally, the oscillating universe theory, originally supported by Einstein, speculates that that the known universe ends in a "big crunch" which is followed by another big bang and another crunch etc. etc. in a process which continues indefinitely. If quantum theory is true such that there is only a finite amount of configurations within a finite volume possible, then identical states of the Hubble volume should reoccur, due to chance alone.

Having examined these ideas, Nietzsche's words seem almost prophetic. The idea that everything that has been, has already been, and will indeed occur again due to the infinity of time is extraordinary. Surely such a proposition completely and utterly obliterates the existence of man and every one of our lives into utter insignificant and meaningless nothingness?

[Fooloso4]

MustaphaTheMond:

This concept that, given time is infinite whereas the number of possible states are finite, events will recur again and again infinitely …

This is the logical argument he proposes, whether he accepts it and what he makes of it might be very different. It is not clear whether you are interested in discussing this argument or discussing how it fits with the whole of his philosophy.

One assumption that must be questioned is whether the number of possible states is finite.

The more Nietzschean question is what we are to make of this? What effect should it have on our lives? Since our own existence is finite, whether it has all happened before or will happen again is out of bounds. It does, however, provide a useful way of judging our own lives – live as if the choices you make are not isolated or limited to the moment; that they will be repeated time and again.

He is well aware of the dangers of paralysis and nihilism this may engender. This, however, is nothing new. His Zarathustra echoes Koholeth’s lament that there is nothing new under the sun. If free will is an illusion we must cultivate forgetfulness and still choose as if we had the ability to choose. Zarathustra overcomes the gravity of the situation with levity.

[Felix]

Scholars says that Nietzche's later works and posthumous notes paint an entirely different picture of what he meant by eternal recurrence. Here's a direct quote from one of his later notebooks: "The same quantity of energy means something different on a different level of development... Everything has been here before innumerable times, in so far as the total field of energy always returns. Whether aside from this anything identical has existed, is entirely undemonstrable."

[Fooloso4]

Felix:

Scholars says that Nietzche's later works and posthumous notes paint an entirely different picture of what he meant by eternal recurrence.

The problem is that what he meant by eternal recurrence is not clear, so one would first have to defend a plausible interpretation that illuminates the whole of the individual works as well as identify how those works rather than isolated statements in those works have changed. We must pay attention to what he says about reading and writing, specifically esoteric writing which he tells us he practiced. There is also the problem of his sister Elizabeth's alterations. While some scholars make this claim, others do not agree.

[Lucylu]

I think that the

I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and what particularly struck me were his writings about the "eternal return", "amor fati" or "eternal recurrence" of things. This concept that, given time is infinite whereas the number of possible states are finite, events will recur again and again infinitely (such as me typing this very sentence) seems to be almost eerily echoed by some theories in physics and mathematics.

In mathematics, the Poincare recurrence theorem states that "a system whose dynamics are volume-preserving and which is confined to a finite spatial volume will, after a sufficiently long time, return to an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of its initial state". Indeed, such a mathematical truth supports Nietzsche's belief that "in an infinite period of time, every possible combination would at some time be attained".

I think that ideas are constant and the the laws of physics are constant so therefore the physical world of matter and energy, including the conscious beings within it, will revolve around those certainties in the same ways forever. Every combination that can occur will, eventually, but I don't believe it could ever be exactly the same.

As you say, the differences would be arbitrary, like the differences within systems we see on a smaller scale, such as the word for 'table' may be technically different in every language, but its the meaning (symbol) which is important and its relation to other objects and other words which is the same.

[MustaphaTheMond]

Live as if the choices you make are not isolated or limited to the moment; that they will be repeated time and again.

A fascinating quote Fooloso4: such words could almost be seen to be echoing Kant's maxim of universalisability. If the choices you make are repeated time and again, then such choices should be made in acknowledgement of the concept.

[Felix]

That is Nietzsche's Superman: He who could say Yes! to every moment of life, even if he knew he would have to repeat that life eternally.

[Fooloso4]

MustaphaTheMond:

…. such words could almost be seen to be echoing Kant's maxim of universalisability.

There are significant differences. Kant’s maxim was based on logical contradiction. There is nothing logical about choosing to repeat your mistakes and the consequences of those mistakes forever. Surely that would be hell.

If the choices you make are repeated time and again, then such choices should be made in acknowledgement of the concept.

What concepts?

[Sy Borg]

If the repetition is caused by the probabilities of an infinite reality, then logically you wouldn't not only repeat mistakes but take every possible alternative in equal measure, in which case the consequences of our actions are temporally and physically local rather than spiralling down an eternal vortex of blundering.

Bear in mind that an infinite universe would include you as a worm. Consider yourself as a worm repeating its wormish errors for eternity. Every time you turned left towards the crow rather than right. Never mind the times you turned downwards and the dozens of of other significant variants. What of the time you as a worm stayed still, or moved slowly, or the time you slipped out of the bird's beak because it had just eaten oily human throwaways ... ad infinitum and nauseam.

There seems to be to be an underlying sense of "mystical punishment", the endless dissatisfaction in our efforts, that is revealed in the focus on error repetition, rather than more seriously considering the countless other variations possible in infinity. To me, that highlights an aspect of humanity's success - we constantly push, prod, encourage, shame and coerce each other. Freeloaders, bunglers and saboteurs all face considerable pressure to lift their game by society at large. It's obviously an old practice to threaten those considered to be suboptimal members of society with post-death metaphysical punishments.

The implied message is that death is no escape. Science suggests otherwise, as do some lines of metaphysical thought.

Regards

Fooloso4*

* apparently I am in a universe where I experience all the same triumphs and bumbles as in this life, but I happen to use the Fooloso4 moniker ;)

[Nick_A]

Hello MustaphaTheMond

You wrote:

I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and what particularly struck me were his writings about the "eternal return", "amor fati" or "eternal recurrence" of things. This concept that, given time is infinite whereas the number of possible states are finite, events will recur again and again infinitely (such as me typing this very sentence) seems to be almost eerily echoed by some theories in physics and mathematics.

Briefly as I understand it, the first three dimensions of length, width, and depth, refer to space. Existence occurs in time which takes place in the fourth dimension. Time is the repetition of a moment. Our life cycle takes place in the fifth dimension or eternity. Eternity is like a repeating line consisting of connected moments in time. A person’s life can repeat in eternity. Any conscious alterations of eternity takes place in the sixth dimension which includes all possible eternities.

The movie Groundhog Day dealt with this potential

From wiki

Groundhog Day is a 1993 American fantasy-comedy film directed byHarold Ramis, starring Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, and Chris Elliott. It was written by Ramis and Danny Rubin, based on a story by Rubin.
Murray plays Phil Connors, an arrogant Pittsburgh TV weatherman who, during an assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, finds himself in a time loop, repeating the same day again and again. After indulging in hedonism and committing suicide numerous times, he begins to re-examine his life and priorities.

Change was only possible for Phil Conners through conscious awareness of the human condition as in manifested in him. Eternal recurrence offers much food for thought.

[Chikoka]

You cannot repeat time, else it would be the same time.

Things only happen once,
because whatever marker you put in to track repetition will also oscillate (cycle) with everything else and so it will record only one cycle.

If F(time_x) = (universe_state_x) ,

When (universe_state_x) happens again it must correlate with (time_x) by definition of universe, so in what way are those F(time_x)'s different states or repetitions of each other. Its like saying "1" is not the same as "1", its just a copy.

[Fooloso4]

There is another aspect to be considered: it is a rejection of the notions of transcendence and progress. In other word, a rejection of Platonism, Christianity, and the then current Age of Progress. It is a return to here and now rather than an escape to elsewhere. The eternal is the eternal now, what he calls in Zarathustra and elsewhere ‘noon’.

We should be aware of how often what he says about eternal recurrence is surrounded by seemingly contradictory statements about creating, the new, and the future.

We should also take head regarding his warning about being unreasonably reasonable.

See too his praise of Heraclitus and the rejection of being in favor of becoming.

[MustaphaTheMond]

MustaphaTheMond:

…. such words could almost be seen to be echoing Kant's maxim of universalisability.

There are significant differences. Kant’s maxim was based on logical contradiction. There is nothing logical about choosing to repeat your mistakes and the consequences of those mistakes forever. Surely that would be hell.

If the choices you make are repeated time and again, then such choices should be made in acknowledgement of the concept.

What concepts?

Agreed, I was just pondering the similarities between thinking "act as if it were to made a universal law" and "act as if your actions were to recur ad infinitum".