Eternal Recurrence and The Breathing Universe Theory

[Sophus]

This is sort of a fusion of Philosophical thoughts and scientific but I think the Philosophy section is more fitting since it deals primarily with the validity Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence idea.

If you're not familiar here's an okay overview of Nietzsche's idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence

The idea that claims to refutes this idea is as follows:

Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/Ï€ of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.

This would hold true if the universe remained in an infinite existence of being. However there is a cosmology theory that suggests the universe may be breathing. As in something causes it to expand and contact with an outside force would cause it to contract. Would this not give a whole new credibility to Nietzsche's idea since it would come down to a probablity of occurrance within each rebirth of the universe? Of course we'll probably know the answers to any of these questions in our lifetime but it is fun to think about.

[curiosityandthecat]

I remember the rebirth theory from when I took an astronomy class in my undergrad. Wasn't very believable then, even less so now, the more we know about dark matter and dark/vacuum energy. Most likely, one of two things are going to happen: 1, everything will become so distant from everything else that future stars will never condense and form, just resulting in a "cold" death of the universe; 2, vacuum energy (or dark energy, or quintessence, or whatever happens to be the end model) will eventually become the predominant force in the universe and, upon passing a certain point (kind of like an event horizon) even electrons, protons and neutrons will have insufficient force to stay together.

What would happen after that, I don't know.  

[AlP]

I don't think eternal recurrence stands up well as a scientific theory these days. I'm not sure if that was Nietzsche's main point though. For one thing he was taking a shot at the Christian idea of the afterlife. His idea was that there was one life and he emphasized that with his idea of its eternal repetition.

I think it was also a way of making people think about whether they would want to live their lives over and over eternally. It's related to his philosophy of having the courage to affirm every action and that every thing a person does is essential to them. He's basically saying live in such a way that you would want to live it again and again.

I treat this one as a metaphor.

[Will]

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again. I miss Battlestar.

[Sophus]

I treat this one as a metaphor.

Ha ha. For all anyone knows it very well could have been intended as a metaphor. Nietzsche wasn't exactly known for his directness. Although he doesn't strike me as the type to suggest an idea for the purpose of inciting a particular sort of behavior. Truth was his main interest, especially over people.

I remember the rebirth theory from when I took an astronomy class in my undergrad. Wasn't very believable then, even less so now, the more we know about dark matter and dark/vacuum energy. Most likely, one of two things are going to happen: 1, everything will become so distant from everything else that future stars will never condense and form, just resulting in a "cold" death of the universe; 2, vacuum energy (or dark energy, or quintessence, or whatever happens to be the end model) will eventually become the predominant force in the universe and, upon passing a certain point (kind of like an event horizon) even electrons, protons and neutrons will have insufficient force to stay together.

Ooooohhhh that's very interesting. Damn, I wish cosmology would hurry up and find its Darwin.

Those two theories would both deal with the activities within the universe - or am I mistaken? I don't pretend to know much of anything about the universe, ha ha, but it seems the main question to determine whether or not the breathing universe would be plausible is if our universe will continue to expand and if it would contract once coming into contact with something outside of it (if there even is something beyond it at all). Of course it can't be proved, but I get the notion that there is more than just our universe. Throughout all of history many humans have have just assumed that all of the observable was all that there was. But at any rate, while the activity within the universe could die - I don't know how that would effect it expanding. Thanks for your post!

Btw I read that Stephen Hawking is writing a new book with a new theory on the universe. I'm excited!  

[AlP]

Ha ha. For all anyone knows it very well could have been intended as a metaphor. Nietzsche wasn't exactly known for his directness. Although he doesn't strike me as the type to suggest an idea for the purpose of inciting a particular sort of behavior. Truth was his main interest, especially over people.

I don't know... He used more rhetoric than argument as far as I can tell =). And he did use rhetoric to change the way people thought. Take "God is dead". He didn't mean that literally. You have to interpret it. Take the will to power or master/slave morality; tell me he couldn't have used more neutral language. Still, I do like my Nietzsche; I just have to be careful to see past the rhetoric to the underlying ideas.

Btw I read that Stephen Hawking is writing a new book with a new theory on the universe. I'm excited!  

If you're interested in physics books, I just read Feynman's book QED (quantum electrodynamics). It's about how photons and electrons behave. It was awesome. Does anyone know if that theory is still current?

[Sophus]

I don't know... He used more rhetoric than argument as far as I can tell =). And he did use rhetoric to change the way people thought. Take "God is dead". He didn't mean that literally. You have to interpret it. Take the will to power or master/slave morality; tell me he couldn't have used more neutral language. Still, I do like my Nietzsche; I just have to be careful to see past the rhetoric to the underlying ideas.

Hmmm.... you make a good point; he never really argued for it. Then again, 'who knows?', he did the same with some of his other ideas. Fun to think about it from both angles.

If you're interested in physics books, I just read Feynman's book QED (quantum electrodynamics). It's about how photons and electrons behave. It was awesome. Does anyone know if that theory is still current?

Thanks, I'll look into it. What year was it written?

[AlP]

What year was it written?

1985