Leo, is Eternal Recurrence true ?

[Someone here]

@Inliytened1 yeah whatever.  Death is really not the main topic of this thread 

what's your thoughts on eternal recurrence? 

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Inliytened1 yeah whatever.  Death is really not the main topic of this thread 

what's your thoughts on eternal recurrence? 

Why not just shorten it to eternal?  You see...as I mentioned in another thread asking the question about living all perspectives including your own over and over again...playing out all iterations..here is the thing..infinity just is.  You are already that without playing it out.  You are identical to every "other" being or object in existence.  You don't have to reoccur.  What you are is all of that right now just dreaming that you can do this or can be that - or will be this or will be that.  But time is also something you dream up.  So anytime you reference future or past you are imagining.   You don't need to do that you can just be, because you already are.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Why not just shorten it to eternal?  You see...as I mentioned in another thread asking the question about living all perspectives including your own over and over again...playing out all iterations..here is the thing..infinity just is.  You are already that without playing it out.  You are identical to every "other" being or object in existence.  You don't have to reoccur.  What you are is all of that right now just dreaming that you can do this or can be that - or will be this or will be that.  But time is also something you dream up.  So anytime you reference future or past you are imagining.   You don't need to do that you can just be, because you already are.

Yes I'm right now imagining these infinite incarnations. But are they gonna become actuality at some point in time ?

The theory is basically that the universe and all existence and energy has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a similar form, an infinite number of times.

It is based on the philosophy of Predeterminism. People are predestined to continue repeating the same events over and over again. Nietzsche was merely riding on this cosmic abstraction to dramatize his philosophical musing. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Someone here

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yes I'm right now imagining these infinite incarnations. But are they gonna become actuality at some point in time ?

But are they gonna become actuality at some point in time ?

see how tricky this is? There is no time.

Stop after "Yes I'm right now"

[Someone here]

20 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 There is no time.

Why is time an illusion? What do you mean by time? And what do you mean by it being an illusion? 

Time exists. Sure. We even have a word for it. We are even talking about it right now.   

It's just like everything else.. What you think it is.... Isn't actually what it is. 

our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s relativistic space-time.. Which is supposed to be an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass is just a simplification.  In other words the universe is like a movie.. All past presents and future are contained in the same place (for lack of better words). But that's none of your business as you are completely bought into the linearity of life. 

Better question be What is time? And good luck answering. 

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Why is time an illusion? What do you mean by time? And what do you mean by it being an illusion? 

Time exists. Sure. We even have a word for it. We are even talking about it right now.   

It's just like everything else.. What you think it is.... Isn't actually what it is. 

our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s relativistic space-time.. Which is supposed to be an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass is just a simplification.  In other words the universe is like a movie.. All past presents and future are contained in the same place (for lack of better words). But that's none of your business as you are completely bought into the linearity of life. 

Better question be What is time? And good luck answering. 

Actuality is prior to time and to space which are dimensions within this dream.  Let's put it like this.. If you truly tealized what I am saying you would become God and awaken.  The only thing that exists is Actuality which is what you are.  Nothing else exists.  Everything else is something you are dreaming up.   When you realize what you are all of that collapses and you awaken.

[gettoefl]

time is merely a counter for how many appearances / breaths / chances you are bring given to awaken #abc

just need the one

pun intended

[Someone here]

@gettoefl Time is an abstract concept, not a physical object with geometry. We have been seriously misled about the nature of reality outside our minds by the terminology used by physicists in this regard.

regarding eternal recurrence...Reality is repetitious but it never repeats exactly, because the infinity of sameness is exactly equal to the infinity of variety. All our life experiences are repetitious but not exact copies. So enjoy this version of “you” and your life experiences, they will not be repeated, not precisely, not exactly the same. 

[Breakingthewall]

time appears when form appears. if the form disappears, there is no time and the form never occurred. will there be more forms? It seems that yes, since now there seems to be. but the forms are nothing more  than thoughts that appear and disappear. 

[Someone here]

Observing time passing is not the same thing as time passing, in this sense there is no time passing outside ourselves, just as there is no “COLOR" in physical light, only different wavelengths of force.

We cannot-not-exist and this world is most likely doomed, meaning this universe is probably just one of infinite or many possible universes. And we are most likely not bound in our domain of existence.

[Someone here]

If time is a line, and this line is not merely circular, but spirals, then each circling could be a lot like the one before. Who knows

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here If time is a line (X) then the existence of your body, mind and comprehension of everything (including this line (Y)) within that mind must be a sub-set (x) of the line (X) which is infinitely smaller than the line (X), such that after zooming into the line (X) for a million years you would still have an infinity of zooming to do to find the spec of your own timeline (x). If you are clever you can even see how "this line" which I overlined by the very context it is used in (as a particular comprehension in a given timeline) changes itself so to become incomplete. At which point you would also see the recursion in trying to complete it synthetically, which then makes the only way out an appeal to a priori sensibility, in terms of which all lines would refer to line X. 

By the simple logic that there can not be a "nothing" which makes the line begin nor end. 

The question is from here simple, does the line repeat like a circle or does it not? (both answers would constitute meta-time).

And if we can find limitations to possible variations of matter within a three dimensional space, then we would require a 4 dimensional space to not have everything repeat, at some dimension we would not be able to calculate possible variations and thus be synthetically uncertain about whether we will repeat or not so far as we allow space to take a more than 3 dimensional spatial form.

If we do not find such a limitation in variation to a 3 dimensional space then we would be uncertain also of it repeating or not, and not merely the four dimensional mathematical constructs which I would argue to be contingent on it anyway.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here If it spirals then it would be intuitive to assume that variations of yourself would unfold, though I would consider all geometrical constructs of these concept radically arbitrary and even pure association when all is said, so far as meta-time is concerned especially.

 

 

[Someone here]

The question I feel is about determinism: if we believe that the Universe would have inevitably organized itself in the exact way that it is now, than what we do doesn’t matter. If we believe that we will come back again and again, and ask the same questions, get the same answers, do the same things, then we are not here.

[Someone here]

@Reciprocality sorry its hard for me to understand your posts. Could you explain it in a simpler way ?

[axiom]

23 hours ago, Someone here said:

I share the same worry as you.  Its giving me existential crisis 

I don't mean to sound trite, but a breakthrough experience with any of the DMT forms would make you feel pretty confident regarding what happens after "death".

Regarding 'Eternal Recurrrence':

Consider that all of "time" actually just exists as an unfathomably complex object in space (it doesn't, but getting too metaphysical here will render the metaphor useless). 

YOUR BODY, BRAIN, PAST, FUTURE, ETC AKA 'Someone here', exists as a particular part of this unfathomly complex object. It never moved forwards nor backwards in time because time was something you were imagining all along.

Everything you consider to be your human self, including all of your thoughts, experiences, entire history etc is still at the same place it always was. It never moved. What happened was that your attention moved.

Edited March 4, 2022 by axiom

[Someone here]

Unfortunately I don't have any access to psychedelics .they are illegal in my country. 

My main concern is If time is shaped like a doughnut and therefore repeats with the exact events over and over, would I be the same ‘me’, consciously or not?

[axiom]

@Someone here One of the most amazing things about the psychedelic breakthrough experience, especially when integrated with deep contemplation over years, is that you realise that there really is no "you" - at least not in the way you think there is.

The sense of you-ness will never go away, even when you die.

"you-ness" does not include your thoughts, and it does not include your past. 

Meditate, and you may notice that "you-ness" is still there even when you're not thinking at all.

[Someone here]

@axiom thank you . I will contemplate on that .

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here When you postulate time as a line I consider it impossible for me and you not to actually speak of the same thing.

There is a reason time is intuitively considered a line, so much so one could easily question whether it is a line that should be considered time instead.

 

We can easily use this representation of our timeline (as a line) in the representation of the complete timeline. The problem is that here now occurs a conceptual "inflation" for lack of better terms, by the mere fact that when we represent the complete timeline we do so within the subset of it which is our timeline.

We are therefore not actually even considering the complete timeline (the represented) at all, except if you allow that it (the complete) must be limited in the very way you are limited.

Limited in the same way, though not limited therefore by the same content. For were it limited in the same content then there would be no "it" and thus only you as in Leo's solipsism.

Leo consider paradox to be inherent to the world for this reason, I consider it to be impossible within the world (as an object of my mind) for the opposite reason.

I consider that you and I can speak of [time, space and causality] to each other etc as proof that you exist because I know not what existence would be had I not been able to refer to you or within myself to these sensibilities of time and space. etc.

 

The counter argument would be that we exist also if all sensibilities were removed, this is existentialism. (though they do more than say only this)

Guess who synthesize it all? Not completely but partially: Whitehead.

He argues that everything changes and that no amount of identifying will make up for this perpetual eruption.

 

Though of course this is a postmodern fallacy, which only gets half of the isomorphism correct and denies Kant's a priori sensibility such as space and even denies consciousness itself (I consider Langan to represent that argument).

To argue that we exist without our sensibilities is unironically done by means of them, and rests in its truth on a faculty of knowledge I am unaware of. And must so far as I know it be self evident if to be true yet "beside" my existence. 

To get the whole isomorphism correct you would simply accept that words and ideas express something completely subjective which non the less can be more or less agreed upon generally, and which stems despite because all this from both all our faculties for intuiting things like space but also our imagination which makes the empirical world appear to us.

 

Isomorphism is minimally considered as the relation between X (a territory) and the (two or more maps (Y1, Y2) which can be made of it). 

It can also be considered as (fasten your seat belt) the relation between XY (the terriory and its two maps) and Z as space (the sensibility of either).

 

Do I know that you exist? I am afraid so, though all I know of you is equal to me. Had I known you for 50 years I sill would not know who you really are and for that reason I don't really know that you exist. The construct I make of you and your personality I do not know if it exist in itself, but that in you which refers to space such to make me and you point out in the world I know exists.

edit: Do I know that this thing in you which makes space sensible exists "in" the brain? Definitely not, nothing which exists exists inside anything else. Insideness is arbitrary itself, and I can only induce from experience whether you pointing to space when I say space has anything to do with the brain. There is no authority in existence which could render the belief of this sensibility as being inside your brain truthful, so belief can therefore never be about truth. (which is what most people think belief is, for they have not thought for 5 minutes on what truth is)

Belief is a method thus which makes experience trough imagination fall in or out of predictability, which is essential to science as the ultimate belief.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Reciprocality