Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

If I am not mistaken, I think surreptitious57 is referring to experiments undertaken at places like the Fallturm Bremen(is also able to simulate weightlessness, with the newly installed catapult). surreptitious57 may also be referring to experiments that take place in space.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 are you sure about even without air resistance? Purely a matter of curiosity for me.

:-k

surreptitious57

I see where you are coming from . . . however . . . and I have a headache - so I can only hope this makes sense.

Is that true though? Consider existing empirical data.

I would not be too sure about this, especially as time goes on. The scientific method can be applied in computer simulations and emulations to a high degree of accuracy. With the availability of empirical data we have at our disposal these days, we can at the very least, arrive at a high enough degree of accuracy to determine whether an hypothesis is accurate - just by plugging in numbers from empirical data. I am quite happy to elaborate . . . when this headache is gone.

#-o

Mass doesnt alter g.
G on earth is 9.8.

Fixed Cross

Yes - I have that in my head . . . I am not sure how correct I was in that post.

What I was responding to triggered a memory. When I do physics these days - I use a lot of references.

My idea is this:

If we have reason to believe that we are here now . . .

. . . then why do we not have reason to believe that we have been here before ? . .

. . . and why do we have no reason to believe that we will be here again?

Given the number of possible outcomes using the same stuff contained in our universe now - then it is possible that all of the stars and planets and other bodies could just as easily have taken a different configuration - which means that each time of return could be different also.

I have my reservations on a cyclical time however - eternal return is not necessarily dependent on time either - this may be basing the idea around people but a leap in imagination could make a universe reconfigure without people.

So I am saying eternal reconfiguration - which also allows room for eternal rebirth et cetera.

Just an idea!

:-k

yes you can test this with planets, planets have more gravity around other planets.
and the gravity equation accounts mass as a variable

Thank you for answering - it might have seemed like a peculiar question, my apologies for that if so.

:smiley:

no worries

The mathematics works out to be that even if given an infinity of time, the universe could never be in the exact same state as it ever had been before. It is a fact that every instant in time is new, throughout eternity.

So I am saying but maybe not expressing it properly that we can forget the same state, and it is possible for rebirth but in a different configuration - so rather than eternal return, oh and Cyclical Time, is it possible that we could be reborn? As a different physical person?

There is an infinity of you present at all times. Exact duplicates of you down below the subatomic level exist throughout the universe. Each one diverges from being identical to you as time passes. But also as time passes, another exact duplicate forms from something that wasn’t quite exact yet. You will always be present in the universe, as will I and every other creature ever born. There is no escape from that conclusion once you know the mathematics of it (which isn’t all that hard).

So yes, you are “reborn”. And even more, you are being reborn every instant into different locations throughout the universe. Your “soul” and also, separately, your “spirit”, is truly eternal and ever present. And then of course, you are never exactly identical to how you were, thus you are constantly being “reborn” into a new “configuration”, but only through a gradual, cohesive type of process. There are no instantaneous, discontinuitous, or uncaused events. All physical reality flows.

Thank you James, that sums it up really well what I was thinking. I understand the mathematics is not that hard - I have it internalized at present and I intend on externalizing it. The splitting off of us into exact duplicates is a bit more difficult for me to imagine but I imagine the externalization of the mathematics can shed light on that. Hopefully I am fully interpreting you correctly.

I pointed out earlier that RMs method lacks an entire dimension. This lack accounts for the erroneous outcome of an infinitude of the same occurrence.
In fact, the world is infinitely more differentiated than what AO allows for: this theory works with the assumption that being is an abstraction which can be denoted in a homogenous matrix.

In fact, being is differentiated already before it becomes “affectance”.
Not all types of being affect all other types of being. Therefore, it is extremely sloppy to regard existence as “affectance” in general. If this generality existed, then all being would affect all being. But generalities, just like abstractions, aren’t real things.

This does not mean James is a moron - it is also what Einstein wasn’t able to see.
Not to compare James to Einstein, but it is a pretty serious intellectual challenge.

Potential differentiates exhaustively before it is able to touch itself, to lock into itself, to “affect”.
Value Ontology illuminates the entire process before potential (first being) locks into itself as “affectance” - this is the realm where also spin entanglement occurs, a realm logically (obviously not temporally) prior to time-space.

You are just babbling … again. And have no idea what you are trying to criticize. Lying once again. VO can’t compete against AO and seriously shouldn’t try.

If only you had ever attempted to think about what i offer you… but you are someone without love of science.

RM is played out. Capable has clearly proven it invalid based on the physics where i had already shown it to be a statistical post facto surface chart plotting tool lacking dimensionality in 2012.

“how many times have I lived this life; just once or an infinite amount?” “Is this my first time or my last time or somewhere in between?”

Where do these questions come from and where does the idea of cyclical time come from? Is it even respectable to our own intellects to continue to label it as just a theory? There is an eternity of eternities on a linear time line and all circling in time to do impossible things through the underlayers and overlayers of reality within reality creating countless alternate realities off by mere few details to varied and intricately different while still retaining the same overall to completely different, all existing in and seeing through to the end full eternity in all its stretches whether, to us, they cease to exist or we lose sight of them. Our own as we bend our minds trying to pierce and either predict/know the future or ascertain and discern and know our past in all terms of being 100% certain of something that we’ll never be certain of. We can at least be certain of the fact that Cyclical Time, no matter how long, is a truth and not merely a theory.

No viable, post Newtonean rationale has been given for a cyclical universe. So it is not even a theory.
As far as I can tell, we only exist the once. Anyone who really exists is good with that. Eternity is merely our circumference.

I can’t deny Ill be reborn, I don’t know. Il take it, if it is the case, thank you. But cyclical time is a) not argued for and b) does not produce the necessity of repeating identical universes, and c) a perfect equality of these supposed consecutive universes would cancel out any additional existence of the entities in them. Relatively to existence itself we still only exist the once.

History moves in cycles with respect to unchanging laws.
The axis of existence is the will to power. It revolves around this.
This is not a spatial revolving but one of character. The character of being progresses throughout cycles that all relate to the will to power, but can be entirely incompatible with each other.
This is what wormholes really are - absurdity.

Capable never proved anything other than that he is Incapable of learning technical details and what is being said (no doubt due to episodes of uncontrollable ranting). If you think there is a proof somewhere, display it.

And you still can’t figure out what happened to you, largely due to your attempts at placing blame on me.

Haha

happy snoring.