Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

“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.

There is heavy proof that it exists as more than a theory and to deny it is to deny the truth within yourself that you have experienced the same as any other. You can sit there with faulty reasoning; as evidenced; but it does not change the truth.

It is mathematically impossible for the physical universe to ever repeat itself, even once throughout an infinity of time.

Then your math is faulty.

Then show me the fault, otherwise your reasoning is faulty.

Why when you should be having that question answered without my outward response. But, for shits and giggles: in the long-term of long-terms of recycled matter and old matter made new and new spirit matter condensed again to physical matter made manifest, we’re carried along the lines of eternities past and future, like leylines and the random factor is sentient, which makes it a very large likelihood that this little story repeats itself, for how rare to our own lifespan compared to the larger scale, still far too often for some things liking. And, the proof is there in the metaconscious mind to support it along with the seemingly inadequate backing of logical thinking as evidenced here by myself. Entirely reasonable.

So you don’t have any objection to the actual math. You merely “feel” that the math should show something different?

I just gave you my objection backed up by solid logic and you have nothing to combat it with except ‘ad homs’. Should I report you? It’s a pity that I’m not as petty as others. A petty pity that I feel no pity.

#-o

Oh, I’m sorry. So you thought that was “solid logic”. Well, let’s see…

Not that such makes a sensible predicate, but…

“a very large likelihood”? Is that your premise or your conclusion?

Could you show us the statistics on that? Probability is a matter of number of opportunities versus trials.

Obviously you have no such data, so exactly what is the “solid logic” that brought you to such a priori declaration?

So, because we are small? :confused:

Oh.
Well…
As I said,

So your “inadequate backing of logical thinking” is a part of your evidence that the universe repeats itself?
:confused:

I guess I am just missing the “solid” part.
… well, and the “logic” part.
But the rest, I think I understand.

This sounds very much like the Everett Many Worlds Hypothesis

Yes, it does, but I think he was referring to the Quantum Physics probable future worlds said to all simultaneously “exist” merely because amidst the ignorance of the precise present, there is some possibility of each varied future. That is a different kind of thing and ontological nonsense.

I do not see any fundamental difference here as you are both referencing quantum improbability so why is his ontological nonsense but not yours

Does this mean we have always existed for as long as the universe has existed and does it also mean there is a multiverse