/lit/ - Literature

In fact a mini-"recurrence" can be observed even in our limited water-glass experiment, since the initial wave will "recur", even if in significantly diminished form, for as many oscillations as it takes for its energy to be completely dissipated. Obviously, if dissipation were impossible, the wave would recur, in identical fashion, forever. That's how simple it is to understand, and prove, the eternal recurrence. Isn't it hilarious then how every single Nietzsche scholar of the past 130 years has questioned this blatantly self-evident concept? (self-evident, obviously, once Nietzsche has explained it to you). Some of them went as far as to try to prove that Nietzsche's philosophy could stand, largely unaffected, even without it! That's how convinced they were of its falsity! And yet it's right there, in perfectly unambiguous terms, in the man's notebooks: “The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence". That's all it took to send me on the path of creating this little proof and thought-experiment that I just explained here. Maybe philosophical scholars simply haven't learned elementary physics? And maybe people who have learned elementary physics do not read philosophy? That's certainly my take on the educational background and intellectual habits of all those people. — William Plank, on the other hand (author of the Quantum Nietzsche), went the opposite way. He was so convinced of the reality of the concept (which is to say that he was so FASCINATED by it, and WANTED it to be true so badly), and so motivated by Nietzsche's references (in his notes) of his impending "proof" of it (a proof that never materialized, beyond the little snippet of it that I just quoted — which pretty much amounts to a proof, as I have explained, for anyone who understands even a little physics), that he set out to create his own proof, a bizarre extrapolation on the basis of Eigen's and Winkler's glass-bead games which, according to Plank, "cannot be disproved". And indeed I can't disprove it, if for no other reason than because I can't understand it. I can't understand, that is, how the laws (or lack of laws) that govern the configurations of beads in a glass-bead game are a proof of anything, least of all of the eternal recurrence; while Plank seems to think that merely repeating a few dozens times that something has been proved proves it. On top of the fact that, even if his proof is somehow valid, it's still superfluous next to my immeasurably simpler and more commonsensical one, never mind Nietzsche's ultra-succinct one-line note that says everything to those who know anything, the complete obliviousness towards which is what betrays that Plank hasn't really understood anything.

>the universe is a closed system

>>8388170
yes?

>>8388290
So we have no free will then?

Fuck off, Alex.

>>8388296
For a closed minded person who only sees what he knows in the present
Yes, you have free will.

But what do we know; that we are just playing right into things or someone else's plan without even noticing it

>>8388296
That's a given.

>But what seems like common sense on a local scale, becomes NONSENSE when we try to apply it at the scale of the universe, since at that scale there exists neither an "outside" from which energy can be initially transferred, nor to which it can be later dissipated. Any "disturbance" at that level then, will have to be, not only necessarily inherent in the system (ruling out any "external", "transcendental" influence), but also, and for the same reason, necessarily eternally recurring.

Why would it, the 'disturbance'--what is even meant by this? Initial causality? Energy? What?--'necessarily' recur 'eternally'? What about 'elementary physics' makes this obvious?

>>8388170
>implying you can see the sphere from the outside

>>8387682
>>8387685
>taking the simple measure stick with which you determine the value of your life
>and trying to transform it into some quantum coversation of energy unproven mumo-jumbo
WTF are you doing?

>>8388321
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

>>8388296
From the perspective of the universe and time, there is no free will. From the perspective of the individual, there is free will in varying degrees.

One of these days, I hope you retards who are quick to say there isn't any finally realize your error, which is in thinking free will is binary, and in always assuming that the universal perspective is the only right one.

Where is Nietzsche most rigorous in his epistemology?

I'm reading Human All Too Human, barely ten seconds into it and I'm already blown the fuck out by his genetic perspectivism. I'm having an aneurysm reading this shit. Does it get even better?

>>8390237
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense

You shouldn't be that blown out. He is literally just rehashing what some of the ancient Greek sophists like Gorgias said. It is basically self-refuting sophistry, and Nietzsche was more sophist/orator/poet than philosopher.

>>8390278
Truth & Lies + the genealogy is really all I've read of his, other than this and BoT. Does he not go into any more detail elsewhere about these kinds of things?

I'm less interested in the relativity of beliefs than I am ontological commitments in intuition/concepts (in the Kantian sense). Some of the stuff he's saying seems dead on, at least to me. Some of it even feels like it prefigures Uexkull and phenomenology.

>>8388321
Disturbance as in any kind of change at all.

What makes the liquid in a glass wave back and forth, and what makes it STOP waving, is something external to the liquid and glass itself. There is nothing outside of the universe, as per the definition of the universe. So at the level of the universe, if there is any wave (change itself), then the cause of it must be within the universe. It would require another change to make that wave stop; but if ANOTHER change within the universe is required, did the wave really stop, or did it just stop in a particular area of the universe?

Cue Nietzsche's vivid description of the world as a monster of energy, a household with no income or expenses, and life as the will to power itself.