Could the Universe Repeat Itself Over Infinite Time?

[DaveC426913]

I'm pretty sure it would be you.

Well, semantics aside, the OP was worried about being trapped for eternity. This is a misconception.

 

[Overman]

This has nothing to do with you living for eternity. You will still die. A bajillion years from now, if all the atoms in the universe find themselves in a configuration just like it was a bajillion years ago - that won't be you; it will just be a bunch of atoms arranged into a person who is like you.

Yea but you have no perception of those bajillion years, so essentially the next thing you would perceive after dying is being born again as a baby into the same person to repeat the same life, over and over. :|

 

[zomgwtf]

Yea but you have no perception of those bajillion years, so essentially the next thing you would perceive after dying is being born again as a baby into the same person to repeat the same life, over and over. :|

Wrong.

If our universe were to be repeated exactly the same way then assuming everything is predetermined (including our freewill) then you would at the exact point in time along the life of the universe be posting this rediculous comment. You would have been born the same way and you would grow up to be the same person. There wouldn't be any perception of being born again because this you(the one in our universe) isn't being born again. A NEW you is being born for the first time(in a different universe).

This of course assumes, as I said, that everything is predetermined including our choices etc..

So to clarify you are wrong in your assumption that it would be the same person to repeat the same life, over and over again in the context you are giving. I can now see where daves comment comes from.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, semantics aside, the OP was worried about being trapped for eternity. This is a misconception.

I see that now. I was mostly just poking at the weirdness of the situation but this guy does have a pretty far fetched idea here doesn't he?

 

[Overman]

Wrong.

If our universe were to be repeated exactly the same way then assuming everything is predetermined (including our freewill) then you would at the exact point in time along the life of the universe be posting this rediculous comment. You would have been born the same way and you would grow up to be the same person. There wouldn't be any perception of being born again because this you(the one in our universe) isn't being born again. A NEW you is being born for the first time(in a different universe).

This of course assumes, as I said, that everything is predetermined including our choices etc..

So to clarify you are wrong in your assumption that it would be the same person to repeat the same life, over and over again in the context you are giving. I can now see where daves comment comes from.

That's not what I meant. I know there would be no link from this universe to the next, and you cannot perceive being born again. But I'm saying if there is an identical universe in the future, then death is never going to be the end of our life. We will always be perceiving something, not nothing. So technically, we will perceive ourselves as alive, for eternity. Which is scary.

 

[zomgwtf]

That's not what I meant. I know there would be no link from this universe to the next, and you cannot perceive being born again. But I'm saying if there is an identical universe in the future, then death is never going to be the end of our life. We will always be perceiving something, not nothing. So technically, we will perceive ourselves as alive, for eternity. Which is scary.

No I understood exactly what you meant, and it's wrong. You from this universe will never perceive living in any other universe. The other you (in the other universe) will perceive everything. They are 'different' yous, and you certainly will die in this universe and that's the end of you.

 

[Overman]

No I understood exactly what you meant, and it's wrong. You from this universe will never perceive living in any other universe. The other you (in the other universe) will perceive everything. They are 'different' yous, and you certainly will die in this universe and that's the end of you.

Ok yes, they are in different universes in a different timezone, there is no connection.

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. If this theory is true. And if determinism exists then you will always do the exact same thing. So we are like vehicles for a number of predetermined acts. We are like along for the ride, with no free will, and no end, to this eternity.

In regards to eternal return, Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing", and says that its burden is the "heaviest weight" imaginable.

You obviously don't understand it or feel it the same way I do, and that's good that you don't!

 

[JoeDawg]

Subjectively, you cannot not exist!

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.

 

[Golf7]

In regards to eternal return, Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing", and says that its burden is the "heaviest weight" imaginable.

The question is though, would the other "you" be guaranteed to make exactly the same choices you did this life? If not then you will have lived the same life in every way you can have possibly lived it an infinite number of times.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

Thank you JoeDawg, I was trying to think of the term last night but my mind was drawing a complete blank. Continuity. Very important in this situation and was what I was trying to explain without using the term because I had forgot it.

@overman It doesn't matter if this other universe is 100% the same and 100% predetermined. The problem is continuity of your identity between universes. This doesn't exist. I think you are confused about what would be occurring in such a scenario. First of all, you shouldn't take discomfort in the possibility that you exist in a different universe 100% identical to how you are now, because you have no idea if this is true. Second of all if it was true both you's would have no idea. Third of all even if you did believe it to be true you still have to concede there is absolutely no connection between both persons. Their identities are different in the sense that they 'different yous'.

 

[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.