scrape_r_rational/data/cache/5wbf2k.md

"The Eternal Return" rephrased for rationalists.

Post:

[removed]

Comments:

• u/vakusdrake:

  I would go so far as to say even if you got to live the next subjective century in the simulated paradise of your choosing having it then repeated forever would _still_ be horrifying.                     
  For someone like myself who feels the need for progress and is deeply uncomfortable with this sort of memory erasal, the idea of having one's memories erased and reliving events over and over forever is viscerally terrifying even without the extra terror of knowing that actually given the way you specified the scenario I can look forward to probably ceasing to exist once this simulation reaches its end and is replaced with another.
  

  • u/FeepingCreature:

    I can put you at ease: having your memories erased and reliving events over and over is exactly the same as the world ending. There is no such thing as two different worlds with the exact same state.
    

  • u/PeridexisErrant:

    What about an infinitely large number of perfect copies of you, who live the same perfect century and then die?
    

    • u/vakusdrake:

      Well I'm not nearly altruistic enough to give much of a shit what happens to copies of myself after i'm no longer in a position to be capable of caring about that or anything else for that matter.
      

• u/696e6372656469626c65:

  Three points:
  
  1. From a computational perspective, there is no meaningful distinction between a process occurring an infinite number of times and that process occurring only once. So from that perspective, the entire question becomes meaningless.
  2. From a physical perspective, the [Poincare recurrence theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem) suggests that this could happen over the course of ordinary physics. If so, there's no need for demons or computer simulations--ordinary physics will suffice.
  3. Giving a preexisting idea a new paint job does not appreciably alter any of the relevant features of that idea. If I find eternal recurrence to be a dubious concept, I'm not likely to change my mind about it just because you mentioned computer simulations while presenting it to me. [Beliefs aren't attire.](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i7/belief_as_attire/)
  
  Overall, this post strikes me as somewhat low-effort, and as it is I don't think there's much productive discussion to be had on the topic.
  

• u/ElizabethRobinThales:

  > "How could that possibly be with the laws of physics being the way they are?"
  
  I don't see how this is a problem. If the universe runs in cycles of "Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang ad infinitum," then it seems obvious that, eventually, after 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 iterations, the particular arrangement/organization of particles which we would recognize as "our universe" would occur again down to the atom.
  

  • u/696e6372656469626c65:

    Your main point is correct, but a brief nitpick: the number you give is large, but [not quite large enough](http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_time).
    

• u/callmebrotherg:

  This is neither fiction nor a discussion of particular fiction. It belongs in one of the weekly threads.
  

  • u/None:

    [deleted]
    

---