If the universe has no beginning nor end...

@fmf said
For the sake of the thought experiment, if the universe had no beginning and will have no end, what are the implications for the human race and the ideas its members expound upon?

Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal return is one option: everything you do, think, feel, say, experience, everything everything everything will repeat endlessly. This assumes a finite amount of matter & energy in a universe with infinite time. Sounds tedious; it's supposed to. Nietzsche's 'moral' imperative is, act as if you would have to do it an infinite number of times again.

@moonbus said
everything you do, think, feel, say, experience, everything everything everything will repeat endlessly.

This sounds to me just as contrived as unprovable theistic assertions about the universe.

@moonbus said
Nietzsche's 'moral' imperative is, act as if you would have to do it an infinite number of times again.

This strikes me as more useful: a Golden Rule-adjacent type imperative with a metaphorical "infinity" garnish.

@fmf said
This sounds to me just as contrived as unprovable theistic assertions about the universe.

Of course it is unprovable, but It's not entirely implausible if you assume finite matter and infinite time. There are only about 100 elements and if you shuffle them for an infinite period of time, then every possible combination of molecules will recur.

@moonbus said
Of course it is unprovable, but It's not entirely implausible if you assume finite matter and infinite time. There are only about 100 elements and if you shuffle them for an infinite period of time, then every possible combination of molecules will recur.

If you think this applies to human personhood and individuals' unique narratives, then I think, philosophically speaking, that it's a self-obliterating contrivance. It is what is enabled by those "molecules" that matters I'd say, not the "molecules" themselves.

@fmf said
If you think this applies to human personhood and individuals' unique narratives, then I think, philosophically speaking, that it's a self-obliterating contrivance. It is what is enabled by those "molecules" that matters I'd say, not the "molecules" themselves.

Agreed, Material conditions under-determine human action, but material conditions set limits to what human action can accomplish. Material conditions do not force anyone to jump over the moon, nor do they prevent anyone who so desires to attempt it; they do however prevent anyone who tries from succeeding. So, given a finite number of possible constellations of material conditions which limit the range of achievement of human action, and infinite time, it follows that human actions will repeat indefinitely. So Nietzsche’s point still needs to be taken seriously: don’t do anything you couldn’t conscience repeating indefinitely.

@moonbus said
Agreed

Agreement is the end of an argument. To bring eternity in view, to see it for what it is, one must agree that eternity is a straight line without beginning and ending points, and any given point along that line is at the center of eternity, time wise. And materially speaking, of the other 3 physical dimensions, the same can be said of infinity, as they are two perfectly parallel lines of equal length in an infinite and eternal universe. That's the beauty of life, as we are finite points, initially created, curious creatures, contemplating that which cannot be reached, in either direction...or rather in any direction, as the universe is an optical illusion of a perfectly spherically shaped infinite and eternal world, from any physical point of view, and in any possible infinite direction in time.

The discussion had a good beginning, but ended in a fizzle of agreement. It warrants a resurrection, as Friedrich was a madman, but not one possessed by demonic or angelic forces, as he was possessed by those spirits from beyond the knowledge of good and evil. He understood Plato so well, that he was envious. However, not being able to reach such heights for himself, like the fox and the grapes, from Aesop's fables, he labeled Plato as being a sourpuss, and went on to attack him with Christianity. Where he said, as I have heard, Christianity is the Platonism of the people! Others say that: “Nietzsche mentions Plato more often than any other philosopher except Schopenhauer."

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name—assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an inquiry about anything—was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world—the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable—nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further.

@PettyTalk

I'm beginning to suspect that if we used a mono-spaced font and put your posts into a grid, we could use the "Bible Code" word-search methodology to reveal previously hidden secrets about the Cosmos and Its ways.

@pettytalk said
The discussion had a good beginning, but ended in a fizzle of agreement.

If there is agreement in the course of a discussion, why would anyone pretend otherwise?

@pettytalk said
Agreement is the end of an argument. To bring eternity in view, to see it for what it is, one must agree that eternity is a straight line without beginning and ending points, and any given point along that line is at the center of eternity, time wise. And materially speaking, of the other 3 physical dimensions, the same can be said of infinity, as they are two perfectly pa ...[text shortened]... dges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further.

It is considered poor form to not cite your sources.

@divegeester said
It is considered poor form to not cite your sources.

He or she is a member of the Ghost Chamber. Joined it a day or so before making his or her first forum post [a couple of weeks ago], and most of the ~ apparently gently trolling ~ posts since then have been addressed to either you or me.

@fmf said
He or she is a member of the Ghost Chamber. Joined it a day or so before making his or her first forum post [a couple of weeks ago], and most of the ~ apparently gently trolling ~ posts since then have been addressed to either you or me.

Yes, I noticed.

Have we the makings of a potential conspiracy, and will anything come of an implied ghostly inference?
Or has interest in this new storyline already petered out?

Stay tuned for further developments, including (but not limited to) unanswered questions, false dichotomies and some good old fashioned fancy literary footwork.