Thread: Why Reincarnation is a Certainty

People since ancient times have always had the hope of living past death, preferably in some veritable paradise or a new life here on earth that is better than their present and past lives.

It is believed by those with secular beliefs that life after death is an impossibility or at least highly improbable. It is their understanding that the advances of science and mathematics have falsified the notion that life continues after death.

They could not be more mistaken!

Let us look at what is required to live more lifetimes after death:
1. We need enough time, preferably infinite time;
2. We need and already have natural laws that have brought you and I into existence;
3. We need and already have the laws of probability and all the opportunities that go with it.

If we have all three of these requirements, then future lives are not only possible, but inevitable. If time never ends, then the laws of probability dictate that all things we imagine can and will happen within the constraints of the natural laws.

Think of your afterlife as a number on a pair of dice. If there is enough time and you keep rolling the dice, eventually your number will be face up. Since the natural laws caused you to exist once, they can do so again in the future. It is really a question of time.

If time never ends, the following will eventually happen:
1. You will first die;
2. All matter, energy, spacetime, forces, etc. will continue to interact according to physical laws;
3. Our planet, sun will die;
4. A new sun and Earth will eventually be born along with a new history that includes a new you. (This may take many Big Bang and Big Crunch cycles. )

If time is infinite, you will live an infinite number of lifetimes. What you failed to do in this life you will no doubt do in at least one of your future lives. The only thing that can stand in your way is limited time. If time ends too soon, this life may be all there is for you.

Therefore, it is imperative that we examine time to see if it will be limited or infinite. If we postulate that time had no beginning and if we could somehow travel back in time an infinite number of years and then moved forward in time, it would take an infinite number of years to reach the present. We could not realistically expect to reach the present. Hence the present would not exist.

The reality is infinity can never be reached. No fixed beginning means no present moment. Thus time had to begin and before time there was nothing. And I mean absolutely nothing, because if there was anything at all, time would also exist.

Einstein showed us via his brilliant theories of relativity that matter, energy, electromagnetism, gravity, space and time are all intrinsically connected. Nothing can exist without time.

So time had a beginning. Does it have an end? Let's assume that it does. Time ends and there's nothing, the universe dies; it can't go on living without time. Now what? Nothing! Game over!

But wait...at the beginning there was nothing--and time and everything else began from nothing. Thus something comes from nothing and the end of time would just cause a new beginning. A new time and universe would begin. That sounds great, since it renews our hope for an afterlife.

Unfortunately we have the problem of infinite regression once again: before our universe began, there was nothing, and before that another universe that began with nothing and so on. As we established earlier, in order for our present moment to exist, time had to have had a fixed beginning...but time also needs an infinite future.

There can only be one beginning and there can be no end. That is the only way to solve the infinite regression paradox. Once something arises from nothing, it can never go back to nothing--a beginning state. It must keep moving forward. No matter how far forward it moves, you always have a finite amount of time that has passed and so the beginning and the present can be traced, are not lost, but are part of infinite time.

Here is to our future lifetimes! Cheers!

I appreciate your asking these questions. Your logic though, as much as mine, is really butchered along the way by what you can't grasp. To me it looks like a string of delusional non sequiturs. I'm sure to you mine would seem likewise.

Basically, you say infinite regression is a problem, and I say it's awesome.

But go back a bit please and tell us what is meant by "you" as in "you to exist once" or "your afterlife". I think a lot is assumed and unspoken here. Personally I don't believe I have a soul or fixed essence even in life, in other words I'm a different person every moment and "I" is an illusion, so I'm skeptical of reincarnation. How could I remain the same person? Why should I wish that?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Let us look at what is required to live more lifetimes after death:
1. We need enough time, preferably infinite time;
2. We need and already have natural laws that have brought you and I into existence;
3. We need and already have the laws of probability and all the opportunities that go with it.

If we have all three of these requirements, then future lives are not only possible, but inevitable. If time never ends, then the laws of probability dictate that all things we imagine can and will happen within the constraints of the natural laws.

i don't see how it follows that reincarnation MUST exist
whether time in the universe is infinite or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether individual items within that universe have a finite existence or not

I believe in reincarnation which is promoted by the Hindus religion.

There are numerous stories and books on this subject where 'children' have spoken up about being from another life.
They quoted places and homes and parents and when these were checked out, they were 'true'.
So can you think of any other evidence that has this kind of credibility?

No way.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I believe in reincarnation which is promoted by the Hindus religion.

belief in incarnation is totally immaterial as an indication of whether reincarnation really exists or not

Originally Posted by Cosmo

They quoted places and homes and parents and when these were checked out, they were 'true'.

the plural of anecdote is not data - in the first place, i only have your word for it that these stories have been thoroughly authenticated, and secondly, the fact that i can't explain certain events doesn't make your explanation of them any more valid

Originally Posted by Pong

I appreciate your asking these questions. Your logic though, as much as mine, is really butchered along the way by what you can't grasp. To me it looks like a string of delusional non sequiturs. I'm sure to you mine would seem likewise.

That sums it up for me as well. Reincarnation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. But trying to prove that it doesn't make sense objectively will doubtless put me in the same quagmire.

Originally Posted by Pong

Basically, you say infinite regression is a problem, and I say it's awesome.

Yeah well some people don't seem to have any problem with that sort of thing, prefering to believe that things like the universe has no beginning or first cause. But that does not make sense to me either.

However I think the reincarnation issue is quite seperate from that one for I don't see how this always-reincarnated doctrine is defensible, for then any increase in the total number of living organisms would contradict this. Thus it is much much harder to object to "ok maybe you are not reincarnated but I am" sort of thing. But I still don't believe that this makes any sense either.

Originally Posted by Pong

But go back a bit please and tell us what is meant by "you" as in "you to exist once" or "your afterlife".

Likewise I also would not express doubt about william's experiences, but I would have an entirely different spritual explanation for them.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think a lot is assumed and unspoken here. Personally I don't believe I have a soul or fixed essence even in life, in other words I'm a different person every moment and "I" is an illusion...

wheww... Pong you make it very difficult to decide who is wackier (meant to funny, so no offense please.)

Originally Posted by Pong

so I'm skeptical of reincarnation. How could I remain the same person? Why should I wish that?

I would relate this to the wishes that people sometimes have to be some other person. That does not make sense me. It seems rather meaningless. Could it mean that they want to be that person with exceptions? You know like with the memory of being who they are now so that their memories of the past can continue to screw up their life? If not that, then do they mean that they only want that person to exist and not person who they are now? If that is the case, and that person already exists then that would be a wish for nonexistence. Now I guess that would make sense.

Originally Posted by williampinn

It is really a question of time.

Nothing can exist without time.

Time ends and there's nothing, the universe dies; it can't go on living without time. Now what? Nothing! Game over!

Sorry Willy, time does not have a physical effect on anything as it is not a physical quantity, but instead a mathematical quantity.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by williampinn

It is really a question of time.

Nothing can exist without time.

Time ends and there's nothing, the universe dies; it can't go on living without time. Now what? Nothing! Game over!

Sorry Willy, time does not have a physical effect on anything as it is not a physical quantity, but instead a mathematical quantity.

Why do you think time runs slower closer to earth than further away? (See GR theory for details.)

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by williampinn

Let us look at what is required to live more lifetimes after death:
1. We need enough time, preferably infinite time;
2. We need and already have natural laws that have brought you and I into existence;
3. We need and already have the laws of probability and all the opportunities that go with it.

If we have all three of these requirements, then future lives are not only possible, but inevitable. If time never ends, then the laws of probability dictate that all things we imagine can and will happen within the constraints of the natural laws.

i don't see how it follows that reincarnation MUST exist
whether time in the universe is infinite or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether individual items within that universe have a finite existence or not

Given enough time and given enough opportunities and given the conservation of energy and matter, you will live again.

Originally Posted by Pong

I appreciate your asking these questions. Your logic though, as much as mine, is really butchered along the way by what you can't grasp. To me it looks like a string of delusional non sequiturs. I'm sure to you mine would seem likewise.

Basically, you say infinite regression is a problem, and I say it's awesome.

But go back a bit please and tell us what is meant by "you" as in "you to exist once" or "your afterlife". I think a lot is assumed and unspoken here. Personally I don't believe I have a soul or fixed essence even in life, in other words I'm a different person every moment and "I" is an illusion, so I'm skeptical of reincarnation. How could I remain the same person? Why should I wish that?

Conservation of matter and energy, infinite opportunities and time guarantee your re-existence. Your matter and energy will not only continue to exist in different forms, but your matter and energy will eventually form you again.

Infinite regression may be awesome, but surely you can see the fallacy or paradox. How can the present moment be reached if the past is infinite?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by williampinn

It is really a question of time.

Nothing can exist without time.

Time ends and there's nothing, the universe dies; it can't go on living without time. Now what? Nothing! Game over!

Sorry Willy, time does not have a physical effect on anything as it is not a physical quantity, but instead a mathematical quantity.

I am sure this has come up before and I still do not understand!
If time is purely an abstract, mathematical concept how can it be affected by both speed and gravity?

Originally Posted by williampinn

If we postulate that time had no beginning and if we could somehow travel back in time an infinite number of years and then moved forward in time, it would take an infinite number of years to reach the present. We could not realistically expect to reach the present. Hence the present would not exist.

The reality is infinity can never be reached. No fixed beginning means no present moment. Thus time had to begin and before time there was nothing.

I do not believe in reincarnation altho' I cannot prove it does not happen.
The quote above, however, does make sense to me. It is not a complicated technical idea from maths, physics or philosophy.
How do the adherents of any theory (such as the Steady State theory) that states the Universe has always existed explain how it is possible to reach the present, given an infinite past?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Given enough time and given enough opportunities and given the conservation of energy and matter, you will live again.

i'm sorry, but that is just a statement of belief - it doesn't make reincarnation a certainty or inevitable

granted that low probability events are bound to happen given enough time, but events with zero probability don't fall in that category

you have failed to show that the probability of reincarnation is greater than zero

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by williampinn

future lives are not only possible, but inevitable.

i don't see how it follows that reincarnation MUST exist

He means that if we roll a die and get five then sooner or later we'll roll five again. So future fives are possible. Moreover, given infinite rolls - I'm inclined to agree on this too - fives are inevitable. Infinite fives. Infinite MarnixRs, Williampinns, everything. So far so good.

The reason I cant' accept that as reincarnation is I don't believe the five can be the same five. Not even if we leave the die alone with those five dimples glaring at a room of unblinking witnesses. The "fiveness" depends on observation. We see and relate fiveness but that is not really what we're looking at. We're looking at a decorated cube of plastic.

I could post my password so we all take turns logging in as Pong. We could each believe we're the real "Pong", including me. But the truth is none of us are. Pong is an illusion. There is no actual Pong to be reincarnated.

Some attachments can be recognized but not shaken off.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by williampinn

If we postulate that time had no beginning and if we could somehow travel back in time an infinite number of years and then moved forward in time, it would take an infinite number of years to reach the present. We could not realistically expect to reach the present. Hence the present would not exist.

The reality is infinity can never be reached. No fixed beginning means no present moment. Thus time had to begin and before time there was nothing.

I do not believe in reincarnation altho' I cannot prove it does not happen.
The quote above, however, does make sense to me. It is not a complicated technical idea from maths, physics or philosophy.
How do the adherents of any theory (such as the Steady State theory) that states the Universe has always existed explain how it is possible to reach the present, given an infinite past?

I think the steady state theory is falsified if they can't pull a rabbit out of their hat. LOL!

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by williampinn

Given enough time and given enough opportunities and given the conservation of energy and matter, you will live again.

i'm sorry, but that is just a statement of belief - it doesn't make reincarnation a certainty or inevitable

granted that low probability events are bound to happen given enough time, but events with zero probability don't fall in that category

you have failed to show that the probability of reincarnation is greater than zero

The statement of belief is yours: "but events with zero probability don't fall in that category"

Tell us why there is a zero probability you won't exist again after you die? Conservation of matter and energy is a fact, not a statement of belief. The process of how you came into existence is a fact, not a statement of belief. You are living proof that you happened once, so why is it impossible for you to happen again? It is not. Given enough time, you will exist again.

Originally Posted by williampinn

you will live again.

Tell us why there is a zero probability you won't exist again after you die? Conservation of matter and energy is a fact, not a statement of belief. The process of how you came into existence is a fact, not a statement of belief. You are living proof that you happened once, so why is it impossible for you to happen again? It is not. Given enough time, you will exist again.

Alright, if we substitute "you" with "a crate of biscuits" this kinda works. But plainly there's much more riding on this idea. What is "you"? Are duplicate yous permissible? Can we crumble a few over soup?

[quote="Pong"]

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by williampinn

future lives are not only possible, but inevitable.

The reason I cant' accept that as reincarnation is I don't believe the five can be the same five.

You are forgetting there is unlimited time. Except for the passage of time, everything else could be identical to the present.

Originally Posted by Pong

The "fiveness" depends on observation. We see and relate fiveness but that is not really what we're looking at. We're looking at a decorated cube of plastic.

That does not matter. Define the object any way you wish. Observe it through any lens you wish. Whatever you observe will be manifested by the same decorated cube of plastic in the future.

Originally Posted by Pong

I could post my password so we all take turns logging in as Pong. We could each believe we're the real "Pong", including me. But the truth is none of us are. Pong is an illusion. There is no actual Pong to be reincarnated.

A pong by any other name is still a pong. The illusion of pong will exist again because that which manifests that illusion will exist again. It is only a question of time.

Originally Posted by williampinn

The statement of belief is yours: "but events with zero probability don't fall in that category"

Tell us why there is a zero probability you won't exist again after you die?

to me the application of occam's razor posits the non-existence of an item as the default position until evidence is brought of its existence

also, i thought from the title "why reincarnation is a certainty" that you were going to prove this statement, but i notice that you already slip it in through the backdoor by assuming existence after death as a given

Originally Posted by williampinn

Why do you think time runs slower closer to earth than further away? (See GR theory for details.)

I understand why time runs slower closer to earth. Time itself isn't the cause. It doesn't affect itself, Willy.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I believe in reincarnation which is promoted by the Hindus religion.

belief in incarnation is totally immaterial as an indication of whether reincarnation really exists or not

Originally Posted by Cosmo

They quoted places and homes and parents and when these were checked out, they were 'true'.

the plural of anecdote is not data - in the first place, i only have your word for it that these stories have been thoroughly authenticated, and secondly, the fact that i can't explain certain events doesn't make your explanation of them any more valid

Check this subject out on the web. There are thousands of posts regarding this issue.

Cosmo

First of all, just because an infinite number of things must happen it does not necessarily mean that any specific thing must happen, or that something must happen more than once. There are infinitely many numbers between 2 and 3, but none are greater than 4. And if you gave me the task of telling you a new number between 2 and 3 every day for infinitely many days, I could go on for an infinitely long time without repeating a number.

But even if one accepts your premise that sooner or later some being exactly like me must come into existence, that doesn't really help me. Because I'll be dead. The fact that a new being that happens to be exactly like me comes into existence would be interesting, but it wouldn't actually be me - just a being very much like me.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I am sure this has come up before and I still do not understand!
If time is purely an abstract, mathematical concept how can it be affected by both speed and gravity?

Physical events relative to each other are affected, hence the measurements taken using time will be different relative to each other.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Check this subject out on the web. There are thousands of posts regarding this issue.

Cosmo

and your point is ? am i supposed to be overwhelmed by the law of extremely large numbers ?

millions of people who believed the earth to be flat have not managed to uncurve it to any extent

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by williampinn

If we postulate that time had no beginning and if we could somehow travel back in time an infinite number of years and then moved forward in time, it would take an infinite number of years to reach the present. We could not realistically expect to reach the present. Hence the present would not exist.

The reality is infinity can never be reached. No fixed beginning means no present moment. Thus time had to begin and before time there was nothing.

I do not believe in reincarnation altho' I cannot prove it does not happen.
The quote above, however, does make sense to me. It is not a complicated technical idea from maths, physics or philosophy.
How do the adherents of any theory (such as the Steady State theory) that states the Universe has always existed explain how it is possible to reach the present, given an infinite past?

I think the steady state theory is falsified if they can't pull a rabbit out of their hat. LOL!

I think it is clear that the SST has been in decline, since the late 1960's. At one time, however, it had the support of a large number of rather intelligent scientists, astronomers and philosophers.
The point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of these individuals eventually rejected the SST because of the discovery of the CMBR, but they did not appear to believe the idea of a Universe which has always existed, and therefore has an infinite past, presented, in itself, any kind of scientific or philosophical conundrum.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

First of all, just because an infinite number of things must happen it does not necessarily mean that any specific thing must happen, or that something must happen more than once. There are infinitely many numbers between 2 and 3, but none are greater than 4. And if you gave me the task of telling you a new number between 2 and 3 every day for infinitely many days, I could go on for an infinitely long time without repeating a number.

Interesting point but you are forgetting the constraints of natural laws which prohibit an infinite number of possibilities. Therefore the number of possibilities are limited though numerous. You being one of them. Further, the difference between 2.5 and 2.499999...is negligible. Therefore the possibilities between 2 and 3 can be limited to an acceptable margin of error. You 1.0 and You 2.0 would be indistinguishble to the observer.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

But even if one accepts your premise that sooner or later some being exactly like me must come into existence, that doesn't really help me. Because I'll be dead. The fact that a new being that happens to be exactly like me comes into existence would be interesting, but it wouldn't actually be me - just a being very much like me.

That really depends on how you define YOU. Whether you feel you are helped or not when YOU 2.0 comes along is not among any points in my post. I am simply pointing out that YOU 2.0 is inevitable within an acceptable margin of error and the constraints of natural laws. Additionally, if there is anything to the conservation of matter and energy principle, then after you're dead, your matter and energy will continue and has the potential to be you once again. As far as whether this helps or not, is subjective. It gives me a spriritual high just thinking about it. I find that very helpful.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Halliday

I am sure this has come up before and I still do not understand!
If time is purely an abstract, mathematical concept how can it be affected by both speed and gravity?

Physical events relative to each other are affected, hence the measurements taken using time will be different relative to each other.

I'll take your word for it but I thought time dilation meant that time moves more slowly for a moving object than it does for an object at rest.
Clearly I must have a wrong idea about some fairly basic fact, but if time is affected by speed then it must be something more than a mathematical abstraction.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by williampinn

The statement of belief is yours: "but events with zero probability don't fall in that category"

Tell us why there is a zero probability you won't exist again after you die?

to me the application of occam's razor posits the non-existence of an item as the default position until evidence is brought of its existence

also, i thought from the title "why reincarnation is a certainty" that you were going to prove this statement, but i notice that you already slip it in through the backdoor by assuming existence after death as a given

The existence of your matter and energy after your death is a given. There is no need to prove this. The existence of natural laws is a given. No need to prove this. The laws of probability are a given. No need to prove them. The existence of unlimited time was not a given, so that is what needed to be proven. I show that an unlimited future and a limited past is the best model for time. The alternative is infinite reqression. Now at this point, the only way your chosen default position can be true is if time is limited. Can you show that time is limited? Or can you falsify any of the givens I have mentioned? As far as I know there is a large body of scientific evidence that supports the givens I have mentioned.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by williampinn

you will live again.

Tell us why there is a zero probability you won't exist again after you die? Conservation of matter and energy is a fact, not a statement of belief. The process of how you came into existence is a fact, not a statement of belief. You are living proof that you happened once, so why is it impossible for you to happen again? It is not. Given enough time, you will exist again.

Alright, if we substitute "you" with "a crate of biscuits" this kinda works. But plainly there's much more riding on this idea. What is "you"? Are duplicate yous permissible? Can we crumble a few over soup?

I can't think of any laws that would prohibit duplicate yous. As far as what a "you" is, the Webster definition will serve for now.

Originally Posted by williampinn

The existence of your matter and energy after your death is a given. There is no need to prove this.

the matter that makes up my body does indeed survive me, but becomes dispersed, in the case of cremation to the 4 corners of the earth
as for energy, the only energy that drives our bodies is chemistry, the interaction between molecules - after you die this sort of energy ceases to exist, and the waste heat from the reactions dissipates rapidly after death

so while in general terms energy and matter are indestructable, the organised combination of matter and energy that makes a living person is a totally different matter : once you're dead the organised and energised matter falls apart and the chances of them coming together to make another you is simply beyond calculation - the chances that all these atoms would ever come together in the same fashion are so infinitesimally small that for all intents and purpose it's not going to happen in a million multiverses the age of our own universe

Originally Posted by Halliday

I'll take your word for it but I thought time dilation meant that time moves more slowly for a moving object than it does for an object at rest.
Clearly I must have a wrong idea about some fairly basic fact, but if time is affected by speed then it must be something more than a mathematical abstraction.

From the perspective of both the moving and resting object, their own clocks are ticking normally. They will view each others clock as ticking slower than their own.

Originally Posted by williampinn

The alternative is infinite reqression.

Anything self evident may smack of infinite regression.

There's Occam's Razor too. Of course no barrier is simpler. Try marking "start" at some point by any means and this becomes obvious. And we'd abuse the Razor by saying infinite past and future makes the universe just too complex because of all the items spawned. Double-ended infinity actually makes it constant, and overall boring.

Originally Posted by marnixR

the chances that all these atoms would ever come together in the same fashion are so infinitesimally small that for all intents and purpose it's not going to happen in a million multiverses the age of our own universe

Infinitesimally small? Dishonest term, and you know it. Still, dispersed into infinite space on Williampinn's condition, the chance is finite and fantastically small. But given finite space and infinite time it is bound to recur infinitely.

I love the logic of crossed infinites.

Maybe Williampinn should state just how fine a scale one's existence rises from. For example if one has precisely "the same" arrangement of molecules but the atoms are new atoms, is one "the same" person? Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by Pong

Infinitesimally small? Dishonest term, and you know it.

no i don't know it : even amongst low probabilities, there's a difference between low probabilities that, given enough time, will come to pass, not once but several times, and infinitesimally small probabilities that can for all intents and purposes be considered impossibilities

e.g. in principle there's a chance that all the atoms in a marble statue will move all at the same time in the same direction, and make its arm move - but i won't hold my breath, as the likelihood can be considered to be non-existent even over timescales several times those of the age of the universe

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Pong

Infinitesimally small? Dishonest term, and you know it.

no i don't know it : even amongst low probabilities, there's a difference between low probabilities that, given enough time, will come to pass, not once but several times, and infinitesimally small probabilities that can for all intents and purposes be considered impossibilities

"All intents and purposes" is a finite sample of an infinite quantity. That's appropriate at a concrete empirical level. But for metaphysical models supposed to grasp infinity our intents & purposes are ...infinitely... inadequate. Well, I don't believe you're helping this debate rejecting what you'd prefer negligible as objectively zero in fact. Sometimes an infinite quantity of infinitesimals amounts to something practically significant.

so you consider it quite likely that all the atoms that made up your body at the time of your death will at some time in the future recombine to make another you ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

so you consider it quite likely that all the atoms that made up your body at the time of your death will at some time in the future recombine to make another you ?

No I don't, because the available space IMO is infinite, and not in the half-assed "you'll never make it in time" sense either. So it's possible but extremely unlikely. However, given infinite time (and indestructible atoms) and effectively finite space it must recur an infinite number of times. Williampinn's hypothesis seems amenable to mainstream models of existence.

Regardless I don't believe that even perfectly recombined I would be the same I. Since I'm not even the same I from one moment to the next.

so everything really depends on whether time is really infinite or not

In the same way figures in a cat's cradle depend on essentially infinite strings crossing, yeah. By my account Williampinn's figure cheats because it uses short segments knotted into position. Like ends actually exist. Now I'm going all flaky...

:?


Cute illustration with marble statue by the way.

Well, when I do die all function in my brain will stop. This well then mean i have no mind or thoughts. Then my body will be decomposed by other living organisms. They will then prosper and i will live on from them. Same thing with others organism living on through us.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Conservation of matter and energy, infinite opportunities and time guarantee your re-existence. Your matter and energy will not only continue to exist in different forms, but your matter and energy will eventually form you again.

It would not be "you" it would be a different person. If I kill a man, eject his DNA into a fertilized embryo, it would not be him. It would be a different person with different thoughts and a different life.

Originally Posted by williampinn

How can the present moment be reached if the past is infinite?

You are looking at time the wrong way. We do not move forward in time to the present from the past. Time moves "backward" and where we are is the present. Imagine a man standing in the wind. The wind blowing past his is time, so even if it blows for an infinite distance behind and in front of him, he is in the present because the present is defined as where he is.

Originally Posted by Raggedjoe

Originally Posted by williampinn

Conservation of matter and energy, infinite opportunities and time guarantee your re-existence. Your matter and energy will not only continue to exist in different forms, but your matter and energy will eventually form you again.

It would not be "you" it would be a different person. If I kill a man, eject his DNA into a fertilized embryo, it would not be him. It would be a different person with different thoughts and a different life.

Note: This is just like cloning. Experiments have shown that if you clone an animal twice, the two clones will develop into different "people" separate from each other and the animal they were cloned from.

The matter that makes up ones body is not the same from one day to another, we are continuously discarding skin cells, amino acids in our urine, and various lipids in our various secretions.

Funny thing, I woke up this morning and thought of the same theory. First thing is I looked up certain words associated with this theory and thus found this forum. It all goes to prove that ideas, no matter how improbable, original or crazy may seem, are capable of being thought of by other humans. It goes to show how similar we all really are.

Back to the topic...

So, with infinite amount of time on hand, any combination of things that have occurred in the past, no matter how low the probability, are certain of occurring again.

The combination of atoms, which is "me", occurred. The chances were low but it was possible, to prove this: "I think, therefore I am"

Therefore, with infinite number of tries, particles will form the same combination again, with certainty. Again, and again, and again...

This much was already said.

But here is another twist:

If the combination of particles - me, is possible again, then the "me" combination is even less possible to occur simultaneously, 2 times at the same time, nevertheless possible, assuming there is infinite time, therefore it is inevitable.

But then, me occurring 3 times at the same times also possible, and so on, and if amount of matter is finite, then the number of "me" possibly in existence at the same time is also finite.

If amount of matter is infinite, then me occurring infinite times simultaneously is also inevitable.

But how can "me" be a trillion times at the same time?

This kind of makes me think that the "me" is more than a specific combination of atoms. Call it a soul, or whatever.

---

Next twist:

Imagine if "me" is possible infinite times, then "me" in all forms of mind states is also possible, not just the current mood, mind state. Me in the 100% perfectly happy state, as well as the "me" in the 100% suffering state is therefore unavoidable. What if conscious"me" is possible to "be" again, as a floating brain of particles somewhere in outer space, experiencing total fear and suffering? Wow, now it gets schizophrenic. But if the above theories are true, then this crazy theory has to be true also.

If we accept that "me" is only a material combination of particles and time exists forever, then all above theories must also be true.

Therefore, when atheists say that they are material, bound to happen only once, then there seems to be a contradiction here.

On the other hand, if we accept that "me" is a one of a kind combination but not material, not possible by chance, not capable of repeating again, then we are saying that "me" is not material, but some non-particle "thing", constant, never changing and ongoing.

Comments, please.

Therefore, when atheists say that they are material, bound to happen only once, then there seems to be a contradiction here.

What atheist says this though? Current accepted theory includes finite time (big bang and all). Also the combination of matter that makes "you" involves a far more precise combination that makes the possibility of it existing in close proximity to each other virtually impossible. Also, it does not only involve you. "You" are "you" as a result of your surroundings, which requires that all the people you have ever met and all experiences of your life need to have happened in exactly the same way. That means that the entire history of the earth would have to have played out in exactly the same way twice. That includes all extraterrestrial (supernovas, meteors, maybe Panspermia, and all the events that shaped the earth before it fully formed) influences as well. This requires infinite time, space and matter to have happened infinitely as you stated. The thing is that, as far as I know, infinity can exist with islands of local finity (is that a word?), constrained by the speed of light limit and the rate of expansion of the universe. In this way, for all we know, the big bang might simply have been a local event, but we could never know for sure. Back to square one. The chance of you existing twice within this constraint is as close to zero as makes no difference. Some current theories also postulate a half life for protons (a huge number to be sure), but which would limit the possibilities as well.

You might ask then: "How could I then exist at all if the chances of me existing is so small?" Well, look at the Anthropic principle. Our universe seems to be ideal for life to develop, so there is probably a vast variety of intelligent beings out there IMO. Do they possess souls you think?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Some current theories also postulate a half life for protons (a huge number to be sure), but which would limit the possibilities as well.

This angle may actually pull the rug out. Because if you don't hit a "bottom" but rather go on forever, then "you" at any moment are unfathomably complex in the most exponentially infinite way possible. The Hindu notion of every grain of sand containing universes. So this infinite matches or beats that infinite, in the same way that three Cartesian dimensions are greater than two.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Some current theories also postulate a half life for protons (a huge number to be sure), but which would limit the possibilities as well.

This angle may actually pull the rug out. Because if you don't hit a "bottom" but rather go on forever, then "you" at any moment are unfathomably complex in the most exponentially infinite way possible. The Hindu notion of every grain of sand containing universes. So this infinite matches or beats that infinite, in the same way that three Cartesian dimensions are greater than two.

Not sure how this follows? A finite life for protons means that the universe is at least younger than a certain number of years and that it will not exist as it is now into infinity, making infinite reiterations of yourself totally impossible.

Oh, oops. I just picked up on the fineness of particles/quanta... just how fine do they go?

That might be a good question anyhow if we're looking at an apparently decaying universe. I mean, so what if our protons decay if each proton contains universes of protons... and universes of little people thinking it ought to end somewhere.

Oh, oops. I just picked up on the fineness of particles/quanta... just how fine do they go?

As far as we know, the fundamental particles and no further. But I guess it does not hurt anyone to speculate. :wink:

that is on the assumption that fundamental particles really are fundamental :wink:

Originally Posted by marnixR

that is on the assumption that fundamental particles really are fundamental :wink:

Yeah but that is kind of like assuming that species really did evolve and that the earth and universe really is billions of years old. There are things that are more certain than these, of course. For example, it is more certain that there can be no such thing as faster than light travel of physical objects because that would be more like a logical contradiction.

But this is still twisted. I am a philosophy student, not a scientist, therefore I cannot comment on physics, but...

Is time finite or infinite?

If it ends, then it is finite.
But if it had a start, then it had to start from "nothingness"
then, if it ends, and if it begun from nothingness once, then there is a chance it will begin from nothingness again (if it ever stops).
Therefore time is infinite even if it has an end, and if it does not have an end, then it is also infinite. Time seems to have a possibility of infinity no matter what happens to the half protons or whatever you scientists call it.

So, if time is infinite, then I don't care how close to 0 the possibility of me really is. As long as it is anything above 0 (I think therefore I am, therefore it is above 0), then having infinite time on hand makes me inevitable to occur again. (Not that I want it to or not, just wondering)

So going back to my original thesis:
Accepting that "me" is a strictly material combination of particles and time is infinite, we are accepting that "me" is bound to occur infinite number of times ("me" will never die). Scary thought.

PS. By "me" I don't mean me strictly in this world, around these circumstances. Me I mean the "conscious" me, the "me" able to say: "I think therefore I am"
I don't care if the conscious "me" is floating in outer space or playing golf on planet earth.

Can anyone specifically rebuke my thesis?

Originally Posted by dzrtr

Is time finite or infinite?

maybe both ? time contains a finite number of time units, but each time unit can be integradated indefinitely ?

I don't really understand, can you develop that a little more?

Originally Posted by dzrtr

So going back to my original thesis:

"If amount of matter is infinite, then me occurring infinite times simultaneously is also inevitable."

Accepting that "me" is a strictly material combination of particles and time is infinite, we are accepting that "me" is bound to occur infinite number of times ("me" will never die). Scary thought.

...

Can anyone specifically rebuke my thesis?

Yes I certainly can. It is in fact COMPLETELY INCORRECT. You need to study Cantor's tran-infinites and then you will understand why you are wrong.

Even if the universe is spacially and temporally infinite and even if the matter in the universe is also infinite, that matter can only be at most countably infinite. But there are other orders of infinity. Fore example, when you include irrational numbers then even the number of irrational numbers in a finite segment, like between 0 and 1, is uncountably infinite. Then when you consider the number of functions that you can have on that interval you will find that this is an even higher order of infinity.

The result is that when you study these trans-infinite you will find that the number of POSSIBLE arrangements of matter that you can have is a higher order of infinity than the number of actual arrangements of matter that can actually occur even in an infinite amount of time, which I believe is again only countably infinite.

Thus I believe that you can mathematically prove that your thesis is incorrect.

Interesting...
Math was never my strong subject and I will probably never comprehend Cantor's theories, because this is not my passion but...

Please explain one thing...
I understand that there is an infinite number of fractions between, say 4 and 5.
Now let's imagine a movie lasts 5 minutes then it ends, but just because there were infinite numbers of fractions of time, does not mean the movie lasted for infinity. Right?

So if time lasts, say 5 units of time, and there are infinite numbers of smaller units of time in 5, then that still means that time is finite. Right?

But then, if cosmos ends and time ends at some point, then it might just as well begin from nothing, like it must have begun at some point, from nothing (or whatever preceded big bang)

So, either I don't get Cantor's theory because of my mathematical retardation, or still no one has provided me with an adequate answer.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The result is that when you study these trans-infinite you will find that the number of POSSIBLE arrangements of matter that you can have is a higher order of infinity than the number of actual arrangements of matter that can actually occur even in an infinite amount of time, which I believe is again only countably infinite.

Maybe. On the other hand, distinguished physicists like Paul Dirac have suggested the opposite - that with infinite time a repeat of everything is inevitable.

I note, though, that most of those calculations were done on the basis of infinite time, but possibly finite matter and space.