Assuming the universe is infinite and so is time does that also mean that it's possible that a everything that makes up a person could come back toget

[silly3648]

Hey guys might be a bit of a silly one, but I was wondering this the other day in class. To expand on it a bit if my consciousness is made up of billions of parts and eventually those parts dissipate, over time say billions, trillions of years is it possible that those parts will come back together to form some if not all of my conscious self, sort of like a new after lifetheory? Again I have no idea what I'm talking about here so let me know what your thoughts are and thank you.

[Itoero]

Hey guys might be a bit of a silly one, but I was wondering this the other day in class. To expand on it a bit if my consciousness is made up of billions of parts and eventually those parts dissipate, over time say billions, trillions of years is it possible that those parts will come back together to form some if not all of my conscious self, sort of like a new after lifetheory? Again I have no idea what I'm talking about here so let me know what your thoughts are and thank you.

Your consciousness exists out of interacting experience/knowledge, once it's lost ( when you die) it's gone and it can't come back. Because people want to preserve knowledge/experience, people write books, make videos or teach their knowledge to other people.

 

If somehow your brain gets recreated billion years from now then your consciousness will be different then the consciousness you have now. The knowledge/experience that builds your consciousness is acquired by interacting with your environment.

Environments change so consciousness changes.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Itoero

[silly3648]

I see, but what if your consiousness was not a mix of experiences but a physical combination of your atoms, then over a long enough time would it not be possible for those to come back together, that is not a perfect copy, so lacking of course all previous knowledge gathered ext, sort of like infinite time gives infinite possibility?

[Bender]

There are a lot of atoms in our brains, which all can take up a lot of different configurations. Our universe seems to be heading towards a heat death, and even if that takes a long time, it would take much, much longer for a set of atoms to accidentally align in the same way as your brain aligns now.

 

If the universe is infinitely large, however, there will be a planet somewhere with the exact same collection of atoms as you sitting on it, wondering on an internet forum about his brain.

[silly3648]

Thanks for the reply bender, but then avoiding a heat death, say if the universe continues expanding indefinitely, it's theoretically possible?

And then on that same line of logic it would also have to be the case that everyone's consciousness in some form or another has existed an infinite number of times before.

[studiot]

I think itoero has deduced the link to the nature v nurture argument and presented it very well. +1

 

Because of this argument we just don't know is the short answer.

 

Certainly, even in a finite universe, there is room for theoretical replication eg the roots of the equation x² + 4x + 4 = 0.

[silly3648]

Thanks studiot, can't say I understand the math there, but are you saying the question has sort of been asked before?

[Raider5678]

Hey guys might be a bit of a silly one, but I was wondering this the other day in class. To expand on it a bit if my consciousness is made up of billions of parts and eventually those parts dissipate, over time say billions, trillions of years is it possible that those parts will come back together to form some if not all of my conscious self, sort of like a new after lifetheory? Again I have no idea what I'm talking about here so let me know what your thoughts are and thank you.

Yes.

It's possible.

But you also have to note a few things.

 

1. I'm taking your question and rephrasing it as "After I die is it possible that all the pieces of me could form together after an infinite amount of time and create another living things.

Now the reason I rephrased it, is because the Universe isn't infinite. Additionally, that also sums up your question.

2. Throughout your life, your skin drops skin particles, hair, and more. If all of it was collected, it'd be a much larger you. So you also have to take into account that. But I'm assuming you meant your final body when it died.

 

Now, the chances, are very low. Mainly because there are so many atoms in the universe, it'd be like 1/10^1,000,000^1,000,000^1,000,000.

Which is basically so astronomically low, that it will never happen.

Very simply put.

The universe won't live long enough.

And even if there was infinite time, the chance would still be so low that it's basically impossible. Infinite time is a long time, but doesn't mean it will happen.

It's like saying if you shot two bullets out into space, after an infinite amount of time would they eventually collide from swinging around on gravitational pulls from planets, stars, and galaxies.

Possible, but not likely. Really not likely.

[silly3648]

I see, so to summarise possible over a long enough time frame, but unlikely, in addition it is also likely that the universe will not survive long enough for something with such a low chance to occur. In regards to the universe ending sorry to go on a tangent but it's interesting is the jury out on an eventual end or is it still debated weather it will end and start again or simply continue indefinitely?

[dimreepr]

In regards to the universe ending sorry to go on a tangent but it's interesting is the jury out on an eventual end or is it still debated weather it will end and start again or simply continue indefinitely?

 

That's not a tangent, that should be a new topic.

 

I see, so to summarise possible over a long enough time frame, but unlikely, in addition it is also likely that the universe will not survive long enough for something with such a low chance to occur.

 

 

You should read Douglas Adams.

But to answer the thread title.

 

If the parameters are assumed infinite then, everything that has happened will, probably, happen again.

Edited May 12, 2017 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

I see, but what if your consiousness was not a mix of experiences but a physical combination of your atoms, then over a long enough time would it not be possible for those to come back together, that is not a perfect copy, so lacking of course all previous knowledge gathered ext, sort of like infinite time gives infinite possibility?

True.

But I don't think time is infinite.

If you considers time to be a property of matter then time is not infinite since matter seemingly can disappear.(black holes)

[Mordred]

Why restrict time to a property of matter when the term matter only applies to fermionic particles? Bosons isn't matter. ie photon. Time is simply a property of any change, regardless of what your measuring. That property being the rate of change. Something is always changing once you have a volume. It makes no sense to apply time to a volume of zero.

 

Anyways just a sidenote on time,

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

Why restrict time to a property of matter when the term matter only applies to fermionic particles? Bosons isn't matter. ie photon. Time is simply a property of any change, regardless of what your measuring. That property being the rate of change. Something is always changing once you have a volume. It makes no sense to apply time to a volume of zero.

 

Anyways just a sidenote on time,

Ok, I should have said "If you consider time to be a property of particles".

[Mordred]

😁

[studiot]

Ok, I should have said "If you consider time to be a property of particles".

 

But why would you and how is that germane to the OP?

 

I have already said I thought you did pretty well on your first post#2.

[Itoero]

But why would you and how is that germane to the OP?

 

I have already said I thought you did pretty well on your first post#2.

It's a reaction on the idea that the universe/time is infinite.

It seems like information disappears in Black Holes...perhaps time can disappear as well.

[Schizo@play]

if I am not mistaken the reglious philosophy of reincarnation might be closest exsample I could think of to what op is stating.

 

However the idea of perfect reincarnation would be like saying the universe falls into cycles of expansion and colapse and endlessly repeats such. Which is a theory, again if I am not mistaken.

 

Within the endless cycle of expansion and colapse, once the universe has colapsed in on itself and is in a state of re-expantion. Could the universe repeat the creation of any said object(s) with in said universe durring re-expansion? If so what degree of similarity would the new expantion have with a previous expansion?

 

An exact copy of of any object would be awe inspiring. However the thought of all things being in the a condition to recreate any said object from previous universe would mean that the universe is locked into a pattern of creativity. Now lets say the universe contracts in apon itself erasing what was before taking in account infinite varibles of choas theroy (butterfly effect). The universe would have to follow the excate same pattern of expansion to recreate a excate duplicate of said object from a pervious universe.

 

Could the universe negate infinite possiblities if it is governed by a set standard(rules of creation)?

 

What varibles control creation in re-expantion of a universe?

 

Are the excate right amounts of elements in the excate right place at the right time ot recreate said object within said universe?

 

My conclusion thoughts are.

 

The universe would have to be locked in a precise pattern of creation to recreate excate duplicate of an object. So is it possible? I would have to say its probably seeing how the universe could repeat itself. if a universe follows an infinite cycle of expansion and colapse even if it wasnt locked in to a pattern of creation when it re-expands. Their are an infinite number of chances a universe could repeat itself in such a cycle however such repetiveness would be random and probably few and far between.

 

I would also like to point out laws of averages when discussing such when at anytime looking for repetiveness or patterns.

 

I.e. flip a coin. Will the same coin face always land face up? This is over simplicity exsample.

 

 

(Yes, these was the ramblings of a madman please feel free to ignore such as rubish.)

Edited May 23, 2017 by Schizo@play

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

It's a logical conclusion, one I've brought up many times.

 

If [pi] materialism is true, meaning all which exists is merely different configurations of matter, and [pii] both time and matter are infinite, meaning we end up with an infinite number of configurations, then [c] everything which can exist, will exist, infinitely.

 

In other words, being both a materialist and a believer in an infinite universe logically entails belief in reincarnation.

 

Strange, huh?

Edited May 31, 2017 by DoYouEvenScienceBro

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Ok, I should have said "If you consider time to be a property of particles".

For some reason the time is the carrier of energy and spent Indeed, the energy that the effect can not create goes out and is no longer present. That's why I think # Retro causality is the answer to controlling présent_and to know the outcome of the present event. So to know what needs to be done; is in the knowledge of this heading the past living in the consciousness and must be invented in the mind of the creator and reacting at a desirable outcome predicted for the present time:

All Rights Reserved,,, /

''Roger Dynamic Motion''

[Itoero]

For some reason the time is the carrier of energy and spent Indeed, the energy that the effect can not create goes out and is no longer present. That's why I think # Retro causality is the answer to controlling présent_and to know the outcome of the present event. So to know what needs to be done; is in the knowledge of this heading the past living in the consciousness and must be invented in the mind of the creator and reacting at a desirable outcome predicted for the present time:

All Rights Reserved,,, /

''Roger Dynamic Motion''

Do I understand it correctly that you believe in retro causality because the effect often seems to have less energy then the cause?

That's just because energy is lost to the environment and it transforms.