- Sep 24, 2010By the way, it is not necessarily true that there is nothingness in the middle and the outside of curved, even circular, space (and, by Minkowski's extension, time). I believe we have Bernhard Riemann, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, to thank for proving that theorem.

--- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:

>

> I think we will always keep running into the infinity/nothingness problem.

>

> If time or causality forms a circle, there must be nothingness around it and in the middle. But to say that there is nothingness in the middle is to say that there is *nothing* in the middle, which makes it something different from a circle. And to say that there is nothingness around it is to say that it is bounded by *nothing*, which means it is infinite. And infinity is unthinkable.

>

> My contemplations on this problem, which I have here reported very briefly, drive me toward the conclusion that, contrary to the will to power, the eternal recurrence is not meant to be regarded as a fact. This seems to be supported by the fact that, as far as I know, Nietzsche never presented an argument for it in his published works, except perhaps in *TSZ*, which also stands out in every other way. There he provides an argument for it, but only in order to vanquish the dwarf ('The Vision and the Enigma'). And that only works because the dwarf has already asserted that time be a circle. Zarathustra is merely pointing out the *ramifications* of that idea to him, which is what then defeats him. But Zarathustra omits one of the two premises of his argument, which he only provides later:

>

> "[My laughing, wide-awake day-wisdom, which mocketh at all 'infinite worlds',] saith: "Where force is, there becometh number the master: it hath more force.""

> ['The Three Evil Things', 1.]

>

> This premise, that force be finite, leads inevitably to the infinity/nothingness problem:

>

> "This world: [...] 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[.]"

> [*WP* 1067.]

>

> The phrase here translated as "'nothingness'" is *'das Nichts'*, "'the Nothing'". But what is the difference between 'the Nothing' and *nothing*? How does this not amount to saying that this world is bounded by *nothing*, i.e., not bounded at all? Unless it amounts to saying that, though there is no empty space *within* this world, there is an infinite empty space *outside* it. But if this were the case, its finite force would inevitably disperse into that infinite emptiness. In any case, neither emptiness nor infinity nor nothingness is thinkable, so we still arrive at the same problem Nietzsche tried to solve:

>

> "[T]he world, as force, may not be thought of as unlimited, for it *cannot* be so thought of[.]"

> [*WP* 1062.]

>

> Likewise, it cannot be thought of as being enclosed by 'nothingness' as by a boundary. Hence I conclude that the eternal recurrence is not a fact but a *value*.

>

>

> --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <nietzschefred@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > New model of the universe does away with the singularity, beginning and end and describes physical laws as constantly changing and evolving...there are no cosmological constants.

> >

> >

> > The speed of light and the gravitational "constant" are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.

> > Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

> > The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.

> > The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

> >

> > New life for a scientific consideration of the eternal recurrence?

> >

> > http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html

> >

> - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>