/lit/ - Literature

*tips*

>>11441032
Feel free to take off your fedora and make a serious rebuttal anytime.

>In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized
not necessarily true

>>11441110
I think the key word there is "possible." Only what's not possible wouldn't be realized.

>>11441144
hm, Men exist on earth, there is 1 rock at one side of the earth and 1 rock on the other, it is possible for the rocks to be brought together and combined.. but it also is possible it will not happen

>>11441265
Not the poster you're replying to but it's an inevitability that the rocks will be combined

>>11441110
Oddly enough, that isn't incompatible with Nietzsche's concept of nature as chaos. Maybe that's why Deleuze believed that those "demonstrations" about the Eternal Returned were a bit forced and polemical whereas Nietzsche was less deterministic than they make him seem.

>>11441019
"Nietzsche is the most important philosopher" is tautology.
Only brainlets deny.

>everything is a singularity pushing out
>muh will-to-power

take the egyptian pill

>>11441398
Go on...

Nietzsche was supposedly very knowledgeable about Egypt despite not making it very obvious. It's part of why some people believed that the book called "My Sister and I" (iirc that's the title) wasn't a forgery but rather an authentic confession Nietzsche wrote in the asylum.

>>11441420
im just bullshitting you i have no idea what egyptian metaphysics has to do with refuting nietzsche lol but if someone wants to take me up on it that would be fucking metal thanks

I love Nietzsche, but I'm also a physics student, and I'm going to politely request that you stop talking about things you know nothing about. What you refer as "spacetime and quantum physics" are either matters of interpretation far from universally accepted, completely independent from the actual working theory, or straight up pseudoscientific crap.

In particular, and in case you want to learn more:

>Continual transition forbids us to speak of "individuals," etc; the "number" of beings is itself in flux. We would know nothing of time and motion if we did not, in a coarse fashion, believe we see what is at "rest" beside what is in motion.
The intrinsically non-realistic interpretations of QM were born in the 1920s directly from the influence of philosophers like Nietzsche, but they're not at all essential for making sense of quantum theory, and they're not nearly as popular now. Non-realism and non-determinism arise exclusively from the interactions of quantum system with a macroscopic environment, which (though it's a fairly neglected line of research) is now usually described in terms of quantum decoherence, a thermodynamic-like loss of information to the external world.

>In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place, and each of these combinations conditions the entire sequence of combinations in the same series, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infinitum.
The cosmological models for the ultimate destiny of the universe are all just educated guesses, since we obviously don't have enough evidence to make that sort of predictions, and everybody in physics understands that. Even then, most of them actually prescribe an end for the universe, in the form either of a "big crunch" (space expansion reversing and the universe collapsing in a single point) or a "big rip" (space expansion keeps accelerating until the distance among particles becomes enormous and interactions essentially stop. I personally hate all these stupid buzzwords, but again, everyone in the field understands that they're just toy models and not actual scientific predictions.

Also I get the feeling that you're thinking about the many-world intepretation, although you didn't include anything that sounds too much like it. Many-worlds is a completely baseless and completely dysfunctional way of explaining QM and I don't think there's any physicists that take it seriously anymore.

>>11441361
>Not the poster you're replying to but it's an inevitability that the rocks will be combined
Ok, well different example, material from a planet 999999 light years away, and earth.

>>11441458
>"big crunch" (space expansion reversing and the universe collapsing in a single point)

And what follows after the big crunch? The big bang! Checkmate atheists!

But in all seriousness, how is the many worlds interpretation (Nietzsge probably didn't have it in mind) dysfunctional? Not saying you're wrong, just that it seems like one of those things that just make you go "you can't knooooow, man!", undecidable in an ordinary sense. My knowledge is wikipedia tier though so don't take this as a challenge.

Also, is multiverse different from many worlds?

>>11441019

1. All of the things you quoted are in the Stoics. Some of them in Plato as well. Reflections on the fact that time and space do not exist in themselves can be found in Plotinus, Augustine and Kant.

2. None of your quotes anticipates quantum physics - nor the concept of spacetime.

3. The intellectual value of someone anticipating a theory by articulating it poorly is none if he does not influence directly those that come out with that theory in its clearer form. To say "x anticipated y, therefore he's an important thinker" is absolute bullshit. If I make 5 improbable statements on reality and 1 turns out to be true, it really does not show that I am a genius, unless you can connect the way I say it to the fact that what I said has been proven to be true, e.g. by me influencing who actually prove it. Otherwise you may just say people with schizophrenia who in their delirium say something about the world which turns out to be proven by science are geniuses instead of being people who just spout casual shit and happen to be right once in a while.

>>11441482
Maybe Nietzsche had in mind something on a different timeline. That is to say, the combinations took place before the galaxies were formed rather than after. In another recurrence, the same particles interact later rather than before, but something is maintained, some kind of identity that's more than the combination.

>>11441458
>Also I get the feeling that you're thinking about the many-world intepretation
Why do you get that feeling? Nothing Nietzsche says there insinuates that, and if we go by his description of the world, he says that the world is "at the same time one and many."

>And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!

>>11441458
>Non-realism and non-determinism
always keep in mind the non-determinism is not a statement about actual reality as it actually is: but a statement about the limits of the perspectives of man in regards to the most tiny subtle particle components of reality: It is not that their paths are causeless, or non determined by others and their nature, but it is that man cannot determine their paths due to lack of information and visual ability.

If you cut 7 small thin troughs in the ground 500 yards long all parallel to one another, and placed a person at one end X, where the 7 lines were all straight, and then 460 yards away from that person at X end, the 7 lines in the ground ran into pipes, so that water can be filled in each of them at X, and run down the 460 yards, and enter these pipes: and then the pipes would criss cross in all sorts of ways, over one another, So that at X, pipe number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7: would not align with there station: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 500 yards away, at the end of the pipes.

So that a person at X, could place a yellow ball in slot 1, a green in 2, a red in 3, blue in 4, and so on: and have every right to predict: with ignorance of the other end: that yellow would land 500 yards away aligned with 1, green would align with 2, etc..

He cant see and does not know about the twists and turns of the pipes.

When the person at the other end tells him the stations the balls landed at: The person at X would be right in concluding that their arrival at such stations must have been non determined, by any laws of physics he is familiar with.

>>11441506
The thing is, Nietzsche didn't just churn out 5 improbable statements and had one turn out to be true. He churned out hundreds of extremely precise statements and so far dozens of them have turned out true, about various subjects and areas of society and the world.

>None of your quotes anticipates quantum physics - nor the concept of spacetime.
How don't they? For him to formulate so many thoughts which line up incredibly well with the theories and their implications, and for him to be the first person to elaborately explore the "post-God" world and devise an entire schemata of new interpretations — I would say he definitely influenced the direction of many things since his time, including the sciences in some areas.

isnt this pretty contradictory to Schopenhauers metaphysics which he likely understood?

>>11441528
Nietzsche ended up saying that Schopenhauer had a fundamental misunderstanding of will and had just continued to propagate myths from Christian theism.

>>11441528
He later disagreed and broke with Schopenhauer

>>11441524

>I would say it definitely influenced
This is what you have to prove. If some scientist was reading Nietzsche, then it is relevant, otherwise it is not.

Then again: there is the problem that most of the quotes you produced in your post are directly inspired from Nietzsche's knowledge of the Greeks and Kant. Eternal recurrence is a stoic theory; that there are no individuals is an Eraclitean theory, and that time and space are non-existent in themselves is a Kantian theory. Nietzsche declares directly in his letters and throughout his works is debt to these philosophers.
That said, his whole philosophy is absolutely not innovative when it comes to physics and metaphysics. There is some novelty in how he attaches new interpretation of moral to ancient - in particular Stoic and a "reversed" Platonic - metaphysics.

>>11441019
Imagine being this fucking right. Then also imagine spending your last days preaching insane bs, like how he's "The Crucified" and dances naked in his room. I'm just fucking baffled that you dorks worship this guy like he's the end-all, be-all of philosophy

>>11441019
Or, better yet, let's say I'm you. Here I sit typing away at my keyboard, oblivious to my own shallow conceptions of the world, and regurgitate other's ideas as if it was my life's mission. What you, and everyone else on this goddamned site fail to grasp is how little each of you will ever produce to the history of thought. Sure, you fiddle around here and there on this site or that web page devoted to the complete bastardization of original thought, maybe you even learn a thing or two. but, naturally, you are all as vacuous and detestable as the fucking dung heaps you try - in vain, no less - to keep away while your greasy heads sit wedged between some crusted pillow at night.

>>11441492
I'm not an expert either, I've taken QM classes but I've never heard the many-worlds interpretation mentioned (go figure). From my point of view, there are two ways you can approach the many-world interpretation. You either have the realist, "platonic" view of a pre-existing objective reality that the theory must describe, and in this case many-world is unacceptable, because it redefines the objective reality (making it multi-dimensional) to fit the theory rather than the adjusting the theory to fit reality. Or, if you think physics shouldn't have any pre-existing idea of what reality is, then many-worlds really adds nothing new: if you take out the metaphysical aspect, it's fully equivalent to old school wavefunction collapse, just replacing "randomly collapse" with "randomly choose an universe".

>>11441517
What you're describing sounds like a local hidden variable theory, but in quantum mechanics they don't work, as J.S. Bell found out in the 1960s. In all the most common interpretations, non-determinism goes much deeper than that, and is postulated to be an essential part of reality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
There are loopholes, such as superdeterminism or possibly quantum decoherence, but still, there is no universally accepted deterministic theory yet.

>>11441628
>What you're describing sounds like a local hidden variable theory, but in quantum mechanics they don't work, as J.S. Bell found out in the 1960s.
False. One shiesty convulted uncertain unaware of all aspects of the most smallest and subtlest components of reality, unaware of how unaware of the absolute actual fundamental existence and nature and physical reality of even em radiation and field, styled experiment does not prove anything.

If the universe is real, the fundamental substance of it must be absolutely determined, determined, meaning, causal, meaning object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by another. Only if this universe was fake could the fundamental substance of it be 'spooky and magical and logic defying and casuality defying and completely exit existence at point A and reappear at point Q 100 feet away (though there is a way that is possible: Consider a river flowing and you look at one point of it and you notice 'strands' of the water curling and forming an exact shape! so you take a picture of that shape, and then it dissapears, water is in flux, but then later down the river, you see that shape again, that object just poofed out of existence and reappeared, thematically that is the only way such a thing could happen in a real universe.

If it is true that the fundamental underlying substance of the universe is nondetermined/noncausal, then it is prove universe is fake. I am not certain of either of those. May be, may be not. I tend to think its real, because its so much information it would be hard to fake, and make act so legitimate and smoothly, so thats why I am arguing against your and bells quip, but maybe the universe is fake.

>>11441019
>School of Life
cease your existence

>>11441524
>which line up incredibly well with the theories and their implications
they don’t

>>11441713
> taking such an obvious bait

Maybe I'm the one being trolled...

>>11441144
Not that anon, but still not true. Let's take two biased coins. One always gives heads, the other always tails. We pick one at random and toss it 'in infinite time'. Getting heads is possible, getting tails is possible, but one of the two will certainly never happen.

>>11441560
>If some scientist was reading Nietzsche, then it is relevant, otherwise it is not.
Imagine being this much in fucking denial about the guy who was read by guys like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, and by 99% of philosophers who have come after him. Even when the ideas are there in plain sight, formulated decades before as ideas before they were theories, you act like he wasn't on to something or worthy of his reputation. Even if none of the scientists read him, you have no basis for asserting that they SHOULDN'T have.

>Then again: there is the problem that most of the quotes you produced in your post are directly inspired from Nietzsche's knowledge of the Greeks and Kant.
That's not a problem, all philosophy starts somewhere. That doesn't mean he was simply recycling the ideas; none of them, Kant or the Greeks, arrived at their ideas for the reasons Nietzsche did, which means he arranged them in a very different way.

As for the Stoics, funny you mention them:

>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature?

>The attempt on the part of anti-paganism to establish itself on a philosophical basis, and to make its tenets possible: it shows a taste for the ambiguous figures of antique culture, and above all for Plato, who was, more than any other, an anti-Hellene and Semite in instinct.... It also shows a taste for Stoicism, which is essentially the work of Semites ("dignity" is regarded as severity, law; virtue is held to be greatness, self-responsibility, authority, greatest sovereignty over oneself—this is Semitic.) The Stoic is an Arabian sheik wrapped in Greek togas and notions.

>The stoical type. Firmness, self-control, imperturbability, peace in the form of the rigidity of a will long active—profound quiet, the defensive state, the fortress, the mistrust of war—firmness of principles; the unity of knowledge and will; great self-respect. The type of the anchorite. The perfect blockhead.

That's from Nietzsche. He didn't ignore them, he drew clear lines between his philosophy and theirs. So, I don't think you know what you're on about.

>>11441719
>One always gives heads, the other always tails. We pick one at random and toss it 'in infinite time'. Getting heads is possible, getting tails is possible, but one of the two will certainly never happen.
>One always gives heads, the other always tails.
Which ever you pick, if you pick tails, it will not be possible for it to land on heads, so you cant say, once you pick one:

>Getting heads is possible, getting tails is possible,

>>11441144
checked

>>11441513
Ugh, so good until he gets to “and it’s all the will to power and so are u lol”. It’s so beautiful and profound and similar to Hinduism before that

>>11442166
Why does that devalue it?

>>11441458
This makes me want to never listen to another JRE episode again.

>>11441761
>The Stoic is an Arabian sheik wrapped in Greek togas and notions.

>>11441032

>>11441831
What matters is that it's possible right now. He didn't add the requirement that it has to remain possible forever. To equate the two concepts, you have to assume determinism, which is the only way to save the first part of the sentence. But even then, the second part still fails.

>>11441019
I guess you could say Nietzsche was the first supreme gentleman.

>>11441681
What an abhorrent post, completely devoid of any understanding of the subject matter you presume to address. Experimental verification of Bell's theorem has confirmed its predictions time and time again. Being a no-go theorem, it puts a constraint on the formalism we use to describe quantum mechanics and therefore puts constraints on how we may interpret the theory's description of reality. There is no getting out of it, no escaping it, though I will grant that it deploys concepts whose names only serve to confuse and which rely on subtlest of distinctions. Though physicists and philosophers of physics may use the theorem to support whatever metaphysical conclusion they wish to derive from their preferred interpretations, the truth of the matter is that the only thing Bell tells us is that the world cannot be local, counterfactually definite (unwisely dubbed "realism" - this just means that the quantum state has definite properties before measurement), and nondeterministic simultaneously. That's it. Whichever of these classical intutions you wish to eliminate depends entirely on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you support, and thus the matter is philosophical.

>>11441458
>Also I get the feeling that you're thinking about the many-world intepretation, although you didn't include anything that sounds too much like it. Many-worlds is a completely baseless and completely dysfunctional way of explaining QM and I don't think there's any physicists that take it seriously anymore.

Patently false. While it's true that many worlds as an interpretation was derided when Everett first proposed it, it has gained far broader recognition, and dare I say acceptance, since then. Even Hawking, in his incoherent positivism, understood many worlds to be "trivially true" in that it is simply quantum mechanics without the arbitrary introduction of a collapse postulate. The Schrodinger equation continues its unitary evolution. It is quantum mechanics taken literally, without any of the extra baggage. Decoherence is not an interpretation, it is a necessary pre-requisite for ANY interpretation.

>>11441492
>Also, is multiverse different from many worlds?

Yep. Many worlds is actually an unfortunate misnomer. Everett's ontology is simply that of a universal wavefunction. There is only ever one universe and its branches are the "worlds". The classical assumption one must give up is that of counterfactual definiteness and the possibility of unique outcomes to measurements of the quantum state. A revision of reality certainly, but not the catastrophic reordering that its detractors make it out to be.

>>11443307
>What matters is that it's possible right now.
The only thing that's possible is whatever ends up happening. A "possible combination" is one that ended up happening; it's not possible before it happens.

>HE'S NOT A FATALIST-DETERMINIST ILLEGALIST ACCELERATIONIST CRYPTO-ANARCHIST ROMANTICIST LIBERTINE

LMAO I JUST CANNOT RELATE TO YOU

FATE IS REAL YOU FUCKING PEASANT

>>11443907
Please use a trip so I can filter you, REI wannabe.

>>11441019
Edgar Allan Poe >>> Nietzsche
read Eureka, Poe knew all about universe

>>11443914
DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS AND NO THANKS I DON'T TRIP

>Philosopher said something that vaguely sounds like a simplified pop science version of a modern scientific theory but without any of the experimental evidence or rigor
>DUDE THIS GUY WAS TOTALLY AHEAD OF HIS TIME
Btw anaximander invented evolution

>>11443364
let's substitute that definition of 'possible'
>In infinite time, every combination that ends up happening would at some time or another be realized
a true genius
Seriously: instead of being just wrong, now the sentence is stylistically flawed and still wrong, because
>whatever happens once, will happen infinitely many times
isn't true either

>>11443966
>vaguely sounds like
Fucking philosophy, how does it work?