MFE

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You spelt "believe" wrong

Yes, I also think "believe" is more appropriate. I will edit the message

3 hours ago, joigus said:

You don't have to apologise. I understand perfectly what you mean, and I was just trying to apply an old Chinese technique which is called "koan" for those kind of difficult questions about "I." It's a well-meaning technique. It's about making you drop our common human need to stick to the "I."

In more scientific terms, an electron in my brain is fundamentally indistinguishable from an electron in yours, or another one being kicked off from an atom in the atmosphere. Quantum field theory tells us that elementary particles are just instantiations of one thing called the quantum field. Information is the relevant quantity for describing an "I," or any other physical object.

Very recently a very good friend of mine has died. He was younger than me. I lost my parents when I was very young too. To me, all those people are still living in the only sense that I can find physically meaningful: They uploaded software snippets and applets to my brain, so they are still in the world in this particular sense of information processes. Some day I will die too. Hopefully, I will be able to upload my applets --those that prove to be useful, or good in any sense--, to somebody else's brain.

That's the only way I can conceive of in which we can perpetuate ourselves.

I don't mean to be facetious; only to bring some consolation to you by trying to make you feel more relaxed about the eventual loss of the "I," but I can't think of a better way to finish except with another koan: What is it that makes you John?

I hope that helps.

Thank you for the inspiring thoughts. I have to admit, you definitely uploaded uploaded meaningful thoughts inside of me. 

I wonder where the auto-conscience resides. Perhaps it is a result of neural connections. If it is correct, the question would be, can other future neural connections generate "John's" auto-conscience again.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

As someone said, "do you remember your previous consciousnesses (or those that exist elsewhere in an infinite universe) ?"

No.

So, obviously future ones will not remember you. So it will not be the same "I" even if it happened.

Personally, I find the bare "John's" auto-conscience reappearance consolatory enough, regardless of whether "John" remembers any past consciousness. On the other hand, there are also people who believe to remember past consciousnesses.

In your opinion, given the current scientific knowledge, what is the most likely response to the hypotesis of a future re-generation of today's "John" auto-conscience (like: it is possible, it is unlikely, or we cannot answer to an appreciable degree of accuracy...)?

Thanks for all your contributions. I find this discussion really meaningful.

On 5/21/2020 at 8:06 AM, joigus said:

I know the answer to that one. Every time a newborn appears in this world after one's death, some form of auto-conscience appears again at some point in the future.

The question is: Is that good enough for this form of auto-conscience that's asking the question?

I should rephrase my question. What I meant with auto-conscience is "my" auto-conscience, that "thing that makes me John" (sorry for not being able to express this concept with better words).

The question is, at some point in the future, is it possible that "I" will feel again? 

Thank you all for your meaningful remarks.

So, given our current knowledge, we cannot give a certain answer to this question ("will everything repeat itself?"), but the answer seems to be no; some of the reasons are that  the universe is probably not a closed system, and entropy is bound to increase over time. Am I correct?

If everything does not repeat itself, is it still possible that, after one's death, some form of auto-conscience appears again at some point in the future?

@MigL

Thanks for the precious insight. 

It's correct that a number line is endless and does not repeat itself. In this regard, I would represent time as a number line, would you agree?

The reason why I would think that a living being has infinite chances to be born again, is that the universe has a finite quantity of matter of energy, that interact which each other constantly, causing also the generation of living beings. 

Let's say that a particular series of conditions X led Mr. John Smith to be born.

If matter and energy continue interacting over an infinite time, is it certain that at some point in time (maybe eons later) the same serird of conditions X appear, and Mr. John Smith is born again?

Good day!

The following doubt is raising in my head recently.

If time is infinite,  does it follow that everything that can happen will indeed happen?

If so, are we (as any living being) indeed immortal, in the sense that each living being has infinite chances of being born again?