This may be found in the last collection of Nietzsche’s works, notes, and letters which was posthumously titled: Will to Power. It is not an official piece of Nietzsche’s, but it seems he did plan to write a metaphysical magnus opus on the Will to Power, until that damn horse incident.

There are indications Nietzsche was loosely influenced by new ideas in physics, especially with his understanding of energy.

The Eternal Recurrence, of how I understand it, seems to be an infinitude of infinite variation in which sameness, due to the breath of scope, inevitably infinitely re-occurs.

It is still debated if he believed it or not; he doesn’t write it like it is thought-experiment:

——

“The new concept of the universe. The universe exists; it is nothing that grows into existence and that passes out of existence. Or, better still, it develops, it passes away, but it never began to develop, and has never ceased from passing away; it maintains itself in both states. It lives on itself, its excrements are its nourishment. We need not concern ourselves for one instant with the hypothesis of a created world. The concept create is to-day utterly indefinable and unrealisable; it is but a word which hails from superstitious ages, nothing can be explained with a word. The last attempt that was made to conceive of a world that began occurred quite recently, in many cases with the help of logical reasoning,—generally, too, as you will guess, with an ulterior theological motive. Several attempts have been made lately to show that the concept that "the universe has an infinite past (regressus in infinitum) is contradictory, it was even demonstrated, it is true, at the price of confounding the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from calculating backwards from this moment of time, and of saying: "I shall never reach the end"; just as I can calculate without end in a forward direction, from the same moment. It is only when I wish to commit the error—I shall be careful to avoid it—of reconciling this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with the absolutely unrealisable concept of a finite progressus up to the present; only when I consider the direction (forwards or backwards) as logically indifferent, that I take hold of the head—this very moment—and think I hold the tail: this pleasure I leave to you, Mr. Dühring!...

I have come across this thought in other thinkers before me, and every time I found that it was determined by other ulterior motives (chiefly theological, in favour of a creator spiritus). If the universe were in any way able to congeal, to dry up, to perish; or if it were capable of attaining to a state of equilibrium; or if it had any kind of goal at all which a long lapse of time, immutability, and finality reserved for it (in short, to speak metaphysically, if becoming could resolve itself into being or into nonentity), this state ought already to have been reached. But it has not been reached: it therefore follows....

This is the only certainty we can grasp, which can serve as a corrective to a host of cosmic hypotheses possible in themselves. If, for instance, materialism cannot consistently escape the conclusion of a finite state, which William Thomson has traced out for it, then materialism is thereby refuted. [Pg 428] If the universe may be conceived as a definite quantity of energy, as a definite number of centres of energy,—and every other concept remains indefinite and therefore useless,—it follows therefrom that the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence. In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realised; not only this, but it must have been realised an infinite number of times. And inasmuch as between every one of these combinations and its next recurrence every other possible combination would necessarily have been undergone, and since every one of these combinations would determine the whole series in the same order, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the universe is thus shown to be a circular movement which has already repeated itself an infinite number of times, and which plays its game for all eternity.—This conception is not simply materialistic; for if it were this, it would not involve an infinite recurrence of identical cases, but a finite state. Owing to the fact that the universe has not reached this finite state, materialism shows itself to be but an imperfect and provisional hypothesis.” 1067.

—-

“And do ye know what "the universe" is to my mind? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This universe is a monster of energy, without beginning or end; a fixed and brazen quantity o; energy which grows neither bigger nor smaller, which does not consume itself, but only alters its face; as a whole its bulk is immutable, it is a household without either losses or gains, but likewise without increase and without sources of revenue, surrounded by nonentity as by a frontier, it is nothing vague or wasteful, it does not stretch into infinity; but it is a definite quantum of energy located in limited space, and not in space which would be anywhere empty.

It is rather energy everywhere, the play of forces and force-waves, at the same time one and many, agglomerating here and diminishing there, a sea of forces storming and raging in itself, for ever changing, for ever rolling back over in calculable ages to recurrence, with an ebb and flow of its forms, producing the most complicated things out of the most simple structures; producing the most ardent, most savage, and most contradictory things out of the quietest, most rigid, and most frozen material, and then returning from multifariousness to uniformity, from the play of contradictions back into the delight of consonance, saying yea unto itself, even in this homogeneity of its courses and ages; for ever blessing itself as something which recurs for all eternity,—a becoming which knows not satiety, or disgust, or weariness:—this, my Dionysian world of eternal self-creation, of eternal self-destruction, this mysterious world of twofold voluptuousness; this, my "Beyond Good and Evil" without aim, unless there is an aim in the bliss of the circle, without will, unless a ring must by nature keep goodwill to itself,—would you have a name for my world? A solution of all your riddles? Do ye also want a light, ye most concealed, strongest and most undaunted men of the blackest midnight?—This world is the Will to Power—and nothing else!And even ye yourselves are this will to power—and nothing besides!”

It is still debated if he believed it or not; he doesn’t write it like it is thought-experiment:

——

“The new concept of the universe. The universe exists; it is nothing that grows into existence and that passes out of existence. Or, better still, it develops, it passes away, but it never began to develop, and has never ceased from passing away; it maintains itself in both states. It lives on itself, its excrements are its nourishment. We need not concern ourselves for one instant with the hypothesis of a created world. The concept create is to-day utterly indefinable and unrealisable; it is but a word which hails from superstitious ages, nothing can be explained with a word. The last attempt that was made to conceive of a world that began occurred quite recently, in many cases with the help of logical reasoning,—generally, too, as you will guess, with an ulterior theological motive. Several attempts have been made lately to show that the concept that "the universe has an infinite past (regressus in infinitum) is contradictory, it was even demonstrated, it is true, at the price of confounding the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from calculating backwards from this moment of time, and of saying: "I shall never reach the end"; just as I can calculate without end in a forward direction, from the same moment. It is only when I wish to commit the error—I shall be careful to avoid it—of reconciling this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with the absolutely unrealisable concept of a finite progressus up to the present; only when I consider the direction (forwards or backwards) as logically indifferent, that I take hold of the head—this very moment—and think I hold the tail: this pleasure I leave to you, Mr. Dühring!... I have come across this thought in other thinkers before me, and every time I found that it was determined by other ulterior motives (chiefly theological, in favour of a creator spiritus). If the universe were in any way able to congeal, to dry up, to perish; or if it were capable of attaining to a state of equilibrium; or if it had any kind of goal at all which a long lapse of time, immutability, and finality reserved for it (in short, to speak metaphysically, if becoming could resolve itself into being or into nonentity), this state ought already to have been reached. But it has not been reached: it therefore follows.... This is the only certainty we can grasp, which can serve as a corrective to a host of cosmic hypotheses possible in themselves. If, for instance, materialism cannot consistently escape the conclusion of a finite state, which William Thomson has traced out for it, then materialism is thereby refuted. [Pg 428] If the universe may be conceived as a definite quantity of energy, as a definite number of centres of energy,—and every other concept remains indefinite and therefore useless,—it follows therefrom that the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence. In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realised; not only this, but it must have been realised an infinite number of times. And inasmuch as between every one of these combinations and its next recurrence every other possible combination would necessarily have been undergone, and since every one of these combinations would determine the whole series in the same order, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the universe is thus shown to be a circular movement which has already repeated itself an infinite number of times, and which plays its game for all eternity.—This conception is not simply materialistic; for if it were this, it would not involve an infinite recurrence of identical cases, but a finite state. Owing to the fact that the universe has not reached this finite state, materialism shows itself to be but an imperfect and provisional hypothesis.” 1067.

—-

“And do ye know what "the universe" is to my mind? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This universe is a monster of energy, without beginning or end; a fixed and brazen quantity o; energy which grows neither bigger nor smaller, which does not consume itself, but only alters its face; as a whole its bulk is immutable, it is a household without either losses [Pg 431] [Pg 429] [Pg 430]

or gains, but likewise without increase and without sources of revenue, surrounded by nonentity as by a frontier, it is nothing vague or wasteful, it does not stretch into infinity; but it is a definite quantum of energy located in limited space, and not in space which would be anywhere empty. It is rather energy everywhere, the play of forces and force-waves, at the same time one and many, agglomerating here and diminishing there, a sea of forces storming and raging in itself, for ever changing, for ever rolling back over in calculable ages to recurrence, with an ebb and flow of its forms, producing the most complicated things out of the most simple structures; producing the most ardent, most savage, and most contradictory things out of the quietest, most rigid, and most frozen material, and then returning from multifariousness to uniformity, from the play of contradictions back into the delight of consonance, saying yea unto itself, even in this homogeneity of its courses and ages; for ever blessing itself as something which recurs for all eternity,—a becoming which knows not satiety, or disgust, or weariness:—this, my Dionysian world of eternal self-creation, of eternal self-destruction, this mysterious world of twofold voluptuousness; this, my "Beyond Good and Evil" without aim, unless there is an aim in the bliss of the circle, without will, unless a ring must by nature keep goodwill to itself,—would you have a name for my world? A solution of all your riddles? Do ye also want a light, ye most concealed, strongest and most undaunted men of the blackest midnight?—This world is the Will to Power—and nothing else!And even ye yourselves are this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Well, more than that: your boss would experience the reason why you didn’t want to work, the set of circumstances that were making you need a day off to recharge and recover, or perhaps just enjoy yourself as humans do. Those automatons which we call bosses and managers - although not all are - would gain more than a sensibility of empathy for their employees, but actually experience their needs and desires.

If I was to take a consequentialist point of view, but also use common sense, such a devise would likely lead to a capitalistic fascism of the likes of an Ultra-China. Who needs cameras? - just put a mind-reader 2000 on every block and monitor your populations every thought.

It is ironic, on the above post I take a pure-empathy devise would positively transform the world - which I agree with. However, as soon as you remove both consent and reduce the thought / experience to just information, not shared sensation of understanding, it quickly devolves for malicious usage.

A devise, in general, which would allow another to experience your experience - that being, a perfect empathy devise - I hope, would essentially transform civilisation for the better.

It sounds like you are anthropomorphising these beings: an ant has no conception of the wider colony as we would; the ‘non-subservience’ of a spider to another being does not make it more aware of death; a worm is not more intelligent thank a spider.

If you want the closest experience to what one of these beings ‘feel’ - go pee and tap your foot on the floor, their level of experience probably surmounts to no more than an fraction, perhaps an equivalent, of these sensations combined - without the emerging hierarchy of confluent memories, heuristics, ego impressions, saliences, considerations and sensations which constitute a few moments of your conscious experience, that would ever allow for the word ‘understanding’ to be used for such existential concepts as meaning, life and death, and survival. The brain in a single second is capable of firing hundred billion neurones; it can take a genuine while to actually understand any existential concept properly.

Any three of these is probably as equal in their intelligence as one of those hoovers which automatically responds to dirt in the house. I have met people of thirty and forty years of age, who have yet to fully come to terms with the reality of their eventual demise; some of the most intelligent animals - dogs, pigs, cats, apes, dolphins - are certainly not actually aware of it. I thoroughly doubts an ant, worm or spider have even the slightest clue what any of your worms are referring to, other than reacting to light signals which illicit certain responses.

• Life is suffering and life has suffering are not mutually exclusive, however the latter is a predicate of the former. I think you are confusing anti-natalism with Pessimism, which is not a predicate of its believing. Only because many anti-natalists are also pessimist, and derive their natalist views from their pessimism, does not mean it is necessary to be one. Is also doesn’t exactly follow that if one is a pessimist, one thus has to be an anti-natalist. Nietzsche was originally a pessimist, due to Schopenhauer, and - in his later writings - still held heavily to a metaphysics of strife (in the periphery of suffering), yet I don’t believe he was anti-natalist.

• I discuss a Metaphysics of Suffering, of which Schopenhauer held, at the end of the Well-being Argument, of which it is a substratum off. Itis important to note that Schopenhauer was not the ‘OG’ anti-natalist, as the position goes all the way back to early christianity, buddhism, and ascetic anti-demiurgicalists (often referred to non-academically as ‘Gnostics’).

• I don’t agree with the phrasing of the question, it is skewed to disfavour anti-natalists. Anti-natalism is about whether or not you should bring someone into existence. Not whether it is worth living once you are within it. If I was to re-write it:

‘Is it selfish to believe one does not have the right and should not bring new people into existence, because it has suffering within it; further, to persuade others to also do the same and, if sufficiently successful, lead humanities extinction within a generation?’

Then: No.

You ask: ‘who am I to even decide if life is worth living?’ - well, there is no life beyond your own, whence you perish, so you are literally the one to decide if your life is worth living or not.

As for the non-existent, I would ask: who are you to bring them into the world? - especially if you don’t know if it is worthwhile?

I can’t comprehend your comment, it’s inarticulate. Please re-phrase.

I am not going to comment on pro-mortalism, as I know very little of it.

———

Now, unfortunately I fear you have only been given or are only producing a strawman of both what anti-natalists is, and what it argues.

To define anti-natalism (AN): the belief that it is wrong to bring new people into existence. (This could extend to all life, if needed). It is not a position on what someone should do once they exist, in how to live a fulfilling life, except for the case of arguing a person should not have kids.

As to why: because there is suffering in existence - this is an important point, most arguments used by AN rely not upon the belief that existence is suffering, but that it has suffering within it. From this premise, we derive some of the following arguments:

• Axiological Asymmetry: Existent Benefit = Good; Existent Harm = Bad; Non-existent Benefit = Neutral; Non-existent Harm = Good. (Benefit and Harm here refer to pleasure/pain, knowledge/ignorance, esteem/esteem-lessness).

The allegory used here is: we do not think it is bad for the people who don’t exist on Mars to have no benefit, but do think it good that non-existent martians are not suffering because of such.

• Wellbeing Argument: Existence is majority or entirely suffering vs benefit - Benatar comments on this, supplying scientific studies showing that people’s memory tends to prioritise positive memories over negative ones, even in the case where their life has been relative hell. It is plausible people’s desire to survive is an evolutionary mechanism which increases the chances of reproduction; a person might be perfectly capable of living an unhappy life, incapable of understanding it as such, if their genes incline them towards ignorance. (I personally disagree with the wellbeing argument holistically, as a metaphysical reality of suffering, but I agree that some people’s lives are hell, that they are blind to such a fact, and, despite their circumstances not altering, these peoples still bring new humans into their damaged situation.)

• Probabilistic-Insecurity Argument: we cannot secure the beneficial, no-harm existence of a person we bring into existence, absolutely; hence we shouldn’t bring them into the world.

• Non-consent Argument: given anti-natalists believe, as well as any other sane person, that existence has suffering within it, bringing people into existence without there consent is regarded as wrong. For an analogy: you run a bath; some of it is boiling, hot, tepid, luke warm, cold, or just right. Without their permission, you throw a person into the gigantic bath, without knowing if they will burn, freeze or relax; this we regard as wrong.

• Damnation Argument: this is only reserved for Abrahamic religions but relies upon two points. Firstly, abrahamic religions accept the premise that our current existence is suffering, and only some form of divine act can save us. If they are wrong, about God’s existence, this still leaves existence to be suffering, hence we shouldn’t bring people into the world. They also believe that if man fails to have a relationship with God, atone for his sins, and submit to God, they may be damned into the endless pain of hell. Given a parent cannot ensure their child’s salvation, it seems irresponsible to possibly doom them to eternal suffering.

There are some other interrelated but non anti-natalist arguments:

• Non-natalism argument: instead of it being an injustice to bring people into the world, there simply isn’t a justification for bring new people into existence.

• Environmental arguments: more people will destroy the world quicker.

• Adoption argument: it is better to adopt the millions of kids without parents.

• Vegan Arguments: less people, less animal food produce.

———

As to why we shouldn’t build an utopia: well, I don’t totally disagree with you. I would personally hold that the hedonistic imperative is an obvious conclusion of anti-natalism, when one accepts that humanity will never be wholly anti-natalist. However, the initial imperative to not have kids still is primary.

Despite this, it does not follow we should accept suffering now for the benefit of future generations. An example of this is the classic: ‘maybe I should have kids because they could be the doctor which will cure cancer or a scientist which fixes climate change?’ - however, it does not follow we should subject another being to suffering to resolve our mistakes.

The important point is that anti-natalism and hedonistic imperitivism are not mutually exclusive positions, as long as the latter does not hold that bringing new people into existence is a predicate for the achievement of their vision. We have no right bringing people into existence to achieve our dreams and desire.

———

I also want to point out that reddit anti-natalists are usually not philosophical anti-natalists. They are often ill-informed 20y old whiners with poor life prospects and too must screen time. If you are engaging with reddit anti-natalists you are probably debating the equivalent of a high-school feminist with daddy problems or neo-conservative with mommy problems; not the serious feminists, conservatives or anti-natalist of philosophy and political studies.

Honestly, I think AI intelligence, sentience and autonomy will mirror - weirdly enough - the trans-movement: there will come a moment where an AI self-affirms its consciousness and being, and members of society will either agree or disagree, possibly causing a political debate.

This might seem like a minor moment, but if the AI - assuming it is more anthropomorphically limited to a particular internal communication system, like humans are with synapses - is not capable of transcending to the web over-all, thus is reduced to a body, then perhaps it and we will have to consider its rights and privileges as a living, conscious being.

The key holders of power will likely fail in this duty initially; it will likely fall to the self-affirmation of the AI and empathetic activists to ‘liberate’ it from its servitude.

Persoanlly from several of my psychedelic experiences I came to the conclusion that existence has no intrinsic meaning or purpose. And - while in the West you are correct: you would be the odd one out if you believed as much before the advent of social media - in the East, Hinduism and Buddhism, perhaps Maya, especially the idea of Sūnyata, would indicate meaninglessness.

I hold now more to the notion, less of Intrinsic meaning, but of Intricate meaning: that meanings and purposes are suspended, and substantiated by their relationship to one another. This at least gives me the clarity to investigate the subfocal valences affecting my behaviours.

I think the difference between Modern Nihilism and Spiritual Nihilism can be grounded in the above: the former is a lack of participation with life and relationships to others, which would have interwoven into one another, leading the person to literally feel empty or lacking; the latter is a realisation of relational interwoveness which allows the person to disentangle and detach themselves egoistically from fictional construals - such as ambitions, expectations, reactions, hate - which often lead to suffering.

While I agree that social media has ostensively sucked meaning from people’s lives; I also think it is due to what I coin as vacuity: the distance and separation between things, increasing time to arrive, such as a relationship or even a gym, leading to alienation and eventually emptiness.

I think you’ve been playing a little too much fallout mate.

————

There’s a lot of assumptions here and conclusions which do not follow from their premises:

• Nuclear war does not entail extinction of either humanity or civilisation; there has been heavy investment in counter nuclear arsenals capable of intercepting warheads - while a war itself may be reserved to a few nation states or battlefields. The effects would be devastating, but humanity could recover.

• Nukes do not entail that nukes will be used, only that the option is now available and, thus, the probability of usage has increased.

• Saying physics has put the world into a state of decay is kind of silly; if anything, we have corrupted physics to meet the needs of our own sickened nature. If by ‘evil ruler’ you are referring to Putin and Kim Jong Un, then both only threaten nuclear war defensively in case of invasion.

• “the end result of finding out about the cosmos is about to end civilisation”, it does not follow that nukes are or were - given we have advanced since their invention - the ‘end result’ of physics. Nor does it follow they will end civilisation.

• medicine does not involve itself in the creation of bioweapons. Some specifically amoral experts of the fields of biology, pharmacology, virology and bio-chemistry might, for a lot of cash and their research projects being funded, research and produce bio-weapons. However the majority of medicine focuses on either practice or research into stopping cancer, Alzheimers, Huntingtons, etc.

———

Some of your conclusions may be solid if you re-evaluate them and give well argued premises or evidence for their support.

I won’t and did not tire, lol - though it was a handful.

So, I am counselling my response.

Your ideas remind me a lot of mine, in essential structure - that of Return - before I transitioned to becoming a philosophical pessimist.

However, I don’t want to be further presumptuous by implying understanding, and so I will get back to you in either the next few hours, or next few days.

You will have to forgive my lack of response, but I have been struggling to do so:

I found your initial response and your answer to my ‘intelligence’ question lacking in formality and cohesion. I notice on your profile that your native tongue may be non-english, though I don’t wish to presume.

I decided to browse a few more of your comments on your thread on the Atheist board and I noticed a similar problem. I think your system needs formalisation if it is to be acted upon by yourself and expressed to others.

That is not to imply its foundations are lacking and the underlying ideas not solid, I expect they are accurate; it’s just they lack proper articulation.

From my unhealthy re-re-re-reading of your threads, comments and replies, I think it is clear that the primary focus of your philosophy is that of Epistemological Realism: you hold that there is a reality we can actually grasp in knowledge - you also hold that the increasing accuracy of our models - whether small or big - is proof that there is an reality. Like an arrow drawing closer to its target; the direction of travel implies an existent reality to aim towards, referred to as Laws.

I noticed a lot of people were downvoting your ideas, and if my theory above is correct, I believe that I may have some resolutions for you: terminological and development.

———

So, the former:

I think the word which might be better suited for using, for this apriori object, is “Intelligible” - as a pre-condition of this Intelligence. Because, existence needs to have an essence and ability of comprehensibility to, thus, be perceived. This should allow you to avoid misdiagnosing your metaphysical kernel with the agency of thought, assuming it does not have it, while retaining its structural properties. It also allows you to express your Realism. If you feel there is no differentiation between intelligibility and intelligence, perhaps Logos would suffice, though the draw back would be a religious theme.

For your Going Up and Going Down the terms often associated with those concepts, I believe, are Holism and Reductionism. - if these are right, they will be easier to understand.

I suggest finding a different word than Analogy for “getting that information and relating it to others” - the word itself is used for ‘comparison by similarity’ and pointing to a direction would not really apply here. It may work idiosyncratically in your own nomenclature, but likely not for expressing your ideas to others, which is important for dialectical growth. As for the definition of ‘Analogy’ itself, information is kind of always nested in its relation to another thing, so it is superfluous in this regard.

Here is a book I particularly love:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Thesaurus_of_English_Words_and_Phrases_C.html?id=tZ6LGOnMZ7YC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you scroll through the preview of the book on google it will give a list of words, a thousand or so, all of which will be useful.

———

As for development:

Similar to a hourglass passing sand through a small channel from one chamber to another, I believe your terms and theories - the initial chamber - has led you to the channel of a proto-realism. It is now your responsibility to re-enter into a broader chamber of epistemological study, interact with the ideas there and formalise your ideas in relation to the already understood terminology and history, so others can comprehend you ideas more thoroughly. Then travel through another chamber of clearer philosophical articulation.

If this is not the case in your native language, I definitely believe this is the case with English.

——-

Don’t know if any if this is alright, you clearly have interesting ideas, but your weakness is expressing them.

Are you able to explicate what you mean by this “intelligence” a little more?

I don’t believe you will have an exact map of unity from your collection; it’s naive optimism. Perhaps a child’s rendition of a map.

That’s likely due to the fact that I am now a Nihilist and Anti-realist.

However, there is a big danger irregardless:

There was a old ambition in scholastic monasteries that one single person could become master of all the studies: Theology, Philosophy (though it technically just theological tools at this point), Law, Medicine, etc.

When the enlightenment finally came knocking on their big oak doors, that ambition faltered, because their finely interweaved premises and conclusions were - strand by strand - proven to be incorrect, and the whole web eventually just collapsed.

You risk the chance of creating a fantasy map pointing to the locations of apparent trolls under bridges and dragons in caves; you risk being shown up when the map’s constituents, and their relation to one another, are proven to be inadequate or totally wrong.

——

If you really want three things which can help you go forward, though:

Firstly, critique your paragraph above and the premises that made you write it. You have to remove any bad meat before you let the rest mature.

Secondly, study Siemens connectiveness theory of learning which “emphasises the idea that knowledge is a series of interrelated webs from not only social interactions, but experiences, digital observations (commercials, websites), or even organizations. In the end, the interconnectedness of all of the knowledge leads to learning.”

Third, recognise that learning is not knowledge; that coming up with a theory of learning and having understanding is not the same as having a genuine absolute accurate map such as knowledge.

Augustine’s Privation theory of evil might suit you well.