Yoseph Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I made a post about this a few years ago (I think it's been deleted now), but never really resolved the argument. Well the first question is in the title... and for debating purposes, my standpoint on the answer is yes. If it takes until the end of this universe, or the creation of 10^10^10^10 universes later, anything which is at least physically possible in our current universe is possible. The "therefore" is about conciousness and reincarnation... If conciousness is nothing more than a sort of emergent phenomenon based on the configuration of particles and therefore workings that make up your brain then there is no reason that this configuration couldn't happen again, no matter how remote the chances. If you argue that conciousness is not to do with the brain, you are saying that it is somewhat supernatural, and exists outside the realm of physics...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) EDIT: IGNORE THIS POST: Originally had some doubts about the original premise here. On second thought, I see a large bunch of issues. So perhaps one can indeed just accept the premise for this thread. Edited January 4, 2015 by timo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoseph Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 EDIT: IGNORE THIS POST: Originally had some doubts about the original premise here. On second thought, I see a large bunch of issues. So perhaps one can indeed just accept the premise for this thread. There is no premise, only a question. So you're saying you don't think there is an infinite amount of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) There is no premise, only a question. So you're saying you don't think there is an infinite amount of time?.Going from absolutely nothing , to something , there must be an infinite amount of time available in principle otherwise it would remain , absolutely nothing . However the scale of time , at the nothing condition , does not then exist ? As indeed does any other scale for that matter ( like size ) . Is that not so ? Mike Edited January 5, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There is no premise, only a question. So you're saying you don't think there is an infinite amount of time? That would be the trivial issue. I was more concerned about the conclusion that an infinite amount of time implied that anything that is physically possible will eventually happen. Depending on the exact meaning of "an infinite amount of time" and "physically possible" there are lots of pretty trivial counter-examples. The one possibly closest to your case would be a dampened pendulum started with zero velocity and some non-zero displacement at t=0. Even if time is a real-valued positive variable, which is about as infinite as it gets, you will never re-reach the original displacement for any t>0 despite it being "physically possible" (demonstrated by the state being taken at t=0). Note that this is just one example. I originally posted another one, and there are much more complicated scenarios I'd have in mind, too. This is why I came to the conclusion that it may be easier to skip the scientific issues altogether and stick to pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoseph Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Ok so let's rephrase it to "Anything that has already happened could happen again". Your pendulum example only holds true if no external energy is inputted, which the universe has plenty of. Because of entropy we know this energy will eventually dissappate, but is it foolish to assume the universe will eventually be reborn, if not a different universe created. If the universe ceases to exist don't we have the following principal? Going from absolutely nothing , to something , there must be an infinite amount of time available in principle otherwise it would remain , absolutely nothing . I guess the idea relies on either a multiverse, or this universe to be reborn. The counter argument being this is the only universe and will eventually become dull and empty and remain that way forever. Which leaves the big question of it's origin open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) We are here ! So it must have happened ! Somehow ! Mike Edited January 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoseph Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 But does that mean it can happen again?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 If the universe is born, it will end. That doesn't mean it will not be born again. There is no absolute nothing, as even in a supposed "pure" void that existed at any point, there was a default minimum bit of information, in that there was a void (and logically that means "1" void), as the identifier of the state....that is why I choose PI as the delivery method, as it is based upon the parameters of the spherical point, regardless of size, and, explains the primal linkage between information and geometry. If the universe were to de-materialize, the process would repeat for the same reason. Once any material universe were to be extant, the question remains of could there ever be a void of sufficient purity ever to exist again. If not, then no further universes might be produced, or one skewed by the contamination of the leftover information...so, I vote for a cyclical universe, of perhaps an evolutionary process of recycling information from the previous universe, if indeed any should escape de-materialization. I see de-materialization as possible as the completion of the algorithm PI, which in the scenario I describe. I see PI as the driver of reality, and if that driver is gone, then material reality will have no scaffolding to exist upon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 But does that mean it can happen again?? The condition now it has happened , is no longer the same. Now , instead of nothing , there is something. The something is ALL we now know as the universe to date. Time is now crystallised into the 13.7 billion years we find ourself part of . Time and change are set into a scale we recognise . Size is proportioned to approx 10 to the plus 45 down to 10 to the minus 43. From here on in all of this effects what happens next. It is no longer nothing. Far from it , it is very much something! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) If the universe is born, it will end. You don't know that. It could have a beginning but no end. For example ... I see PI as the driver of reality Pi has a beginning but no end. Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's proveable that it doesn't end, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 didn't godel say something about the unprovability of certain propositions? Could that not apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 didn't godel say something about the unprovability of certain propositions? Could that not apply here? No. There is a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) didn't godel say something about the unprovability of certain propositions? Could that not apply here? No. Goedel showed that some things are not provable. However the irrationality of pi is not one of those things. Read the proofs. Edited January 6, 2015 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreasjva Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 It is possible, but it will never happen, because it will take an infinite amount of time for that 2nd chance to occur. You are stating the odds as 1 in an infinite number of chances. I think you'd stand a better chance if things were finite actually, because they could repeat themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoseph Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 It is possible, but it will never happen, because it will take an infinite amount of time for that 2nd chance to occur. You are stating the odds as 1 in an infinite number of chances. I think you'd stand a better chance if things were finite actually, because they could repeat themselves. Something taking an infinite amount of time to happen seems like an illogical statement to me (maybe I'm wrong). I'm stating the odds are 1 in an extremely high number, but if we have an infinite amount of time, then it will eventually happen. Let's change the argument... we have decided that it is possible that we have an infinite amount of time. Assuming we do, is conciousnes just tied to your brain structure/workings? Will we each experience conciousness again a long long (very very long) time from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Something taking an infinite amount of time to happen seems like an illogical statement to me (maybe I'm wrong). I'm stating the odds are 1 in an extremely high number, but if we have an infinite amount of time, then it will eventually happen. Let's change the argument... we have decided that it is possible that we have an infinite amount of time. Assuming we do, is consciousness just tied to your brain structure/workings? Will we each experience conciousness again a long long (very very long) time from now . Consciousness . by . . . someone or something . . . is essential for . . " An ' Anything ' . having happened.". or the whole thing is a waste of time . . .Nobody or Nothing being conscious is nothing . Vaporous. " the border of a Border is zero " John Archibald Wheeler. " There is no reality unless someone, something observes it " , . 'Trespasssing on Einsteins Lawn' by Amander Gefter Mike Edited January 10, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Assume the universe state as a function of time to be a natural number in [1; 10] and the law that if a number would reduce below 1 it would remain 1 and if it increased above 10 it remains 10. Now assume a dynamics that says "there is a 50% chance that after a time T the number has been reduced by one". Clearly, the state 9 will not re-occur once the universe is in a lower state. That is despite a very limited number of possible states and infinite time. If the rules instead were "there is a 50% chance the number decreases and a 50% chance the number increases" then the state 9 will indeed re-appear after some time. That may seem like a very silly example - it is. The point here is that a finite number of states and an infinite amount of time are not sufficient to draw the conclusion that any state will eventually re-appear. EDIT: To make that clear: I am not saying the universe will never re-reach a state that would be considered the same as now. Our current cosmological models point against it. But whatever: extrapolating them to infinite time may be a bit over-ambitious, anyways. My point is that the deceivingly simple argument that with an infinite amount of time everything is possible (or possible to re-occur in this case) is wrong, or at least not complete. Edited January 10, 2015 by timo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now