B If the universe is infinite or repeats, can "I" exist again?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter moonglow500
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of whether consciousness could be replicated if the universe is infinite or cyclical, questioning if a future version of oneself would possess the same consciousness or be merely a clone. Concerns are raised about the implications of potentially existing again without any memory of past lives. The idea of conducting an experiment to test these theories is proposed, but is met with a reminder of forum rules against personal speculation. Ultimately, the thread is closed due to violations of these guidelines. The conversation highlights deep philosophical questions about identity and consciousness in the context of the universe's nature.
moonglow500
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Can the atoms that make up me come together again given enough time and create "me" again? Is it possible for the consciousness that I currently experience to ever exist again after my death?
If the universe is either infinite, or it repeats, then I would assume that it would be possible for my atoms to come together again at some incomprehensibly long amount of time after my death. If this were the case, would my consciousness that I am currently experiencing now ever exist again, or would it be like a clone? Also, if said clones life repeated exactly as mine is now with no differences at all, would it still be a clone's consciousness experiencing the new life, or would it actually be me since everything would be the same? The thought that I could possibly exist again at any point in the future with my current consciousness terrifies me, even though I would have no knowledge of having previously existed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you think of an experiment to test this? If not, this isn't science.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...

Similar threads

Back
Top