Could the Universe Repeat Itself Over Infinite Time?

[DaveC426913]

But imagine yourself in the previous universe saying that comment, then he(you) went and died somehow, but here you are, typing it again. You don't remember anything from that universe obviously, but everything about that person was identical to you. Think of the massive timescale of the universe, and think that you are alive in the smallest fraction of existence right now. Subjectively, you cannot not exist! You will always perceive being alive.

There is no logic to the above. None of the statements follow logically from the previous statement. They are all non sequitur.

 

[Overman]

You are just playing with language.

Just because something is an identical copy of something else, doesn't mean they are the same thing. For instance, you could make an identical copy of yourself and then have a conversation with yourself. That doesn't mean that, subjectively, you are both people, even if both thinks they are the original. It just means you have a similar composition and history.

The issue of identity gets murky when you start talking about replacing parts of a thing. In this case, 'thingness' becomes primarily a matter of continuity. But there is no continuity in your scenario, only similarity between two different things.

And Nietzsche was being metaphorical. Eternal return, was about embracing the life you have to such an extent that you would 'choose' to live every moment over again, forever. It was an affirmation of life.

I see what you mean. That makes sense with the whole clone scenario. I guess it is hard to imagine ever being dead, since I haven't been dead yet.

I was watching a video last night on TED, who rejects the idea of a cyclic universe.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html

This guy was talking about how there are no entropy fluctuations, and that entropy will always increase in an ever expanding universe. But he did point out that when entropy is high enough, points in the universe can break out of the universe into low entropy (because this breaking off would still be increasing the overall entropy). This low entropy state would then cause another big bang, making a baby universe (which I don't think is identical to the previous one). And he said this occurs in the opposite mirrored direction too.

 

[JoeDawg]

http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html

I can't really speak to the physics of it, but I find the whole 'multiverse' idea unsatisfying.
It strikes me as too convenient.
Its like the big bang/crunch idea, which made perfect sense, until we found out it was wrong.

Interesting ideas though.

 

[magpies]

Can anyone actually explain the multiverse concept to me in a way that doesn't violate the objects not existing ontop of each other thing?

 

[robheus]

... spacetime is supposed to have come into being at the moment of the big bang.

At what moment? A moment at which there was not (yet) time?
You have to re-learn Big Bang Theory, simply it does not state that the event of the Big Bang was the beginning of space time and there are good theories out there that explain why the Big bang happened and solved some previously unexplainable puzzels, like for instance cosmological inflation, that does not require you to introduce something like 'beginning of time' (imho such is a a misnomer, since outside of time, you can not refer to begin, since that already assumed a time concept).

 

[robheus]

Can anyone actually explain the multiverse concept to me in a way that doesn't violate the objects not existing ontop of each other thing?

You should study the topic of multiverse in the context of a theory that comes up with that idea. Like for example string theory or cosmological inflation, where it comes out naturally (inflation just continues in other parts of the universe eternally).

 

[petm1]

I am the center of my visible universe, you are the center of your visible universe, put all of us together we share a common visible universe. A multiverse that is not one on top of another but over lap each other with a common center.