Does Eternalism imply eternal return?

[_heretic]

This question occurred to me thanks to my other thread

 

Since Eternalism says that every point in time still exists, which means that there's another me - in my past - a few keystrokes behind, doesn't that suggest eternal return.

According to Eternalists, when a person dies it is trivial because they are still alive and well in the relative past. If this was correct, would this mean we all have to go through our lives, as we would perceive, ad infinitum?

 

[VikingF]

This question occurred to me thanks to my other thread

 

Since Eternalism says that every point in time still exists, which means that there's another me - in my past - a few keystrokes behind, doesn't that suggest eternal return.

According to Eternalists, when a person dies it is trivial because they are still alive and well in the relative past. If this was correct, would this mean we all have to go through our lives, as we would perceive, ad infinitum?

 

 

I think your thoughts are heading in the right direction, however, I don't think "eternal return" is the correct term to use, because you don't come back so to say. I think it is more correct to call it "atemporal existence", i.e. when you die you "still" exist - in the past, between your birth and death, and each 3D slice of you will "still" remember what is in it's past and have expectations about it's future. (And yes, "still" was not a correct term either, just to highlight that before I get a philosopher of language on my neck. )

[_heretic]

I think your thoughts are heading in the right direction, however, I don't think "eternal return" is the correct term to use, because you don't come back so to say. I think it is more correct to call it "atemporal existence", i.e. when you die you "still" exist - in the past, between your birth and death, and each 3D slice of you will "still" remember what is in it's past and have expectations about it's future. (And yes, "still" was not a correct term either, just to highlight that before I get a philosopher of language on my neck. )

 

 

The question of course is, as the events still exist, do I - since I would also still exist - experience them?

[_heretic]

Is the question really that horrible that no one dares face up to it?

[VikingF]

The question of course is, as the events still exist, do I - since I would also still exist - experience them?

 

Yes, that temporal part of you does (did). Since you did experience it (unless you were unconscious at that moment), and spacetime is static (according to Eternalism, that is), then you did (does).

 

At least that is how I think about it. Other people may disagree.

Edited August 29, 2012 by VikingF

[_heretic]

Yes, that temporal part of you does (did). Since you did experience it (unless you were unconscious at that moment), and spacetime is static (according to Eternalism, that is), then you did (does).

 

Two questions naturally follow that then:

 

1. How are "temporal parts" defined?

2. What would the eternalist's explanation be to why we experience only a present moment?

 

 

[VikingF]

Two questions naturally follow that then:

 

1. How are "temporal parts" defined?

2. What would the eternalist's explanation be to why we experience only a present moment?

 

1. According to Eternalism, everything exist in (and consist of) four dimensions, i.e. three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. An object, e.g. a person, is a four-dimensional "tube" between the its beginning and its ending moment, and a temporal part would be the four-dimensional part of the "tube"/object between two moments.

 

2. Eternalism is just the view that the world consists of four dimensions, i.e. three spatial and one temporal, and nothing more. We probably experience one-by-one moment because that is just how the consciousness works.

[_heretic]

1. According to Eternalism, everything exist in (and consist of) four dimensions, i.e. three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. An object, e.g. a person, is a four-dimensional "tube" between the its beginning and its ending moment, and a temporal part would be the four-dimensional part of the "tube"/object between two moments.

 

2. Eternalism is just the view that the world consists of four dimensions, i.e. three spatial and one temporal, and nothing more. We probably experience one-by-one moment because that is just how the consciousness works.

 

Interesting. How would an Eternalist respond to the objection: "Why don't we experience all moments in our life at once?"

[VikingF]

Interesting. How would an Eternalist respond to the objection: "Why don't we experience all moments in our life at once?"

 

I cannot speak on behalf of all Eternalists, but I would answer it in the same way as I did in my last post: "Because that is how consciousness works".

 

The consciousness is a process that exist from about your birth to your death. Every temporal part of you, i.e. the consciousness within your brain, remember its past and have expectations about its future, and this - somehow - creates the illusion that time is "rolling on" in the future direction. Entropy and the arrow of time could be the reason why we feel time is running in that specific direction.

 

I don't know... I am just throwing out some ideas to think about here.

Edited August 31, 2012 by VikingF

[_heretic]

I cannot speak on behalf of all Eternalists, but I would answer it in the same way as I did in my last post: "Because that is how consciousness works".

 

The consciousness is a process that exist from about your birth to your death. Every temporal part of you, i.e. the consciousness within your brain, remember its past and have expectations about its future, and this - somehow - creates the illusion that time is "rolling on" in the future direction. Entropy and the arrow of time could be the reason why we feel time is running in that specific direction.

 

I don't know... I am just throwing out some ideas to think about here.

 

Some interesting ideas there, thanks