Inevitable Reincarnation?

[JonPaine]

Allow me to show my ignorance of science with an idea that I have been pondering; Reincarnation of each and all of our bodies' elements is plausible, continual and inevitable, under the following scenario:

Assumptions:
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed (The First Law of Thermodynamics)
The amount of matter/energy in the universe is finite.
All matter is in motion, and therefore all matter remains within time.
Time is infinite = Eternity

The creation of life, and evolution, recurs infrequently but routinely throughout time.
When we die, our bodies' elements will break down and over time be dispersed throughout the universe. After eons of time, each lone element or sub-particle of what was our body, will be re-used to form molecules, stardust, which over infinite time will land upon planets, become molecules within oceans, and eventually a life form. The odds of such occurrence is minuscule, almost zero. Nevertheless such occurrences from time to eons of time are inevitable and infinite in number for each element or sub-particle of our body. Of course, each manifestation of life will have no knowledge of it's role in the process.

There you have it. Plausible? Yay or nay?

[ceptimus]

I would agree that it's plausible and even inevitable in a 'steady state' universe.

But the most popular current cosmological theory is of a big bang followed by an ever expanding universe that will ultimately become cold and sparse. If this theory is correct, then there is less chance of the particles of matter that form life on Earth ever being incorporated into new life elsewhere.

[davidm]

I would agree that it's plausible and even inevitable in a 'steady state' universe.

But the most popular current cosmological theory is of a big bang followed by an ever expanding universe that will ultimately become cold and sparse. If this theory is correct, then there is less chance of the particles of matter that form life on Earth ever being incorporated into new life elsewhere.

It turns out that a steady state universe is not necessary for this to happen. Given infinite time, every event with a non-zero possibility of happening should be revisited an infinite number of times.

So, I think the scenario outlined in the OP is entirely plausible, and perhaps even inevitable.

[Listener]

I would agree that it's plausible and even inevitable in a 'steady state' universe.

But the most popular current cosmological theory is of a big bang followed by an ever expanding universe that will ultimately become cold and sparse. If this theory is correct, then there is less chance of the particles of matter that form life on Earth ever being incorporated into new life elsewhere.

It turns out that a steady state universe is not necessary for this to happen. Given infinite time, every event with a non-zero possibility of happening should be revisited an infinite number of times.

So, I think the scenario outlined in the OP is entirely plausible, and perhaps even inevitable.

I've played with the idea of reincarnation ... It would be very convenient to think that death is not the "period" that finishes your consciousness forever.

When you go to sleep you re-awaken. The experience forms our expectation of death. It ain't necessarily so!

I think there is a weakness in "given infinite time". Time seems to be a function of the "big bang" (or whatever is now fashionable).

What you appear to have done is to have endowed infinity with some time-like capacity. Infinity is a quality - not a quantity - "unboundedness" is not a number to be calculated with!

I'm not sure what I'm talking about either - but I certainly can't accept an inevitability for reincarnation :(

[davidm]

See Dark Energy and Life's Ultimate Future. (http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0703183)

[The Lone Ranger]

Allow me to show my ignorance of science with an idea that I have been pondering; Reincarnation of each and all of our bodies' elements is plausible, continual and inevitable, under the following scenario:

Assumptions:
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed (The First Law of Thermodynamics)
The amount of matter/energy in the universe is finite.
All matter is in motion, and therefore all matter remains within time.
Time is infinite = Eternity

The creation of life, and evolution, recurs infrequently but routinely throughout time.
When we die, our bodies' elements will break down and over time be dispersed throughout the universe. After eons of time, each lone element or sub-particle of what was our body, will be re-used to form molecules, stardust, which over infinite time will land upon planets, become molecules within oceans, and eventually a life form. The odds of such occurrence is minuscule, almost zero. Nevertheless such occurrences from time to eons of time are inevitable and infinite in number for each element or sub-particle of our body. Of course, each manifestation of life will have no knowledge of it's role in the process.

There you have it. Plausible? Yay or nay?


I hate to rain on the parade, but nay.

You're forgetting a few very important things.

First, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The amount of usable energy in a closed system (and the Universe is the ultimate closed system) always decreases. Thus, the Universe will eventually suffer a "heat death" when everything reaches the same temperature -- at that point, no work will be possible, and so life will not be possible.

Eventually, every star will go out, the Universe will then be a cold, dark, dead place. Fortunately, that's not going to happen for literally trillions of years.

Eventually, even matter will disappear. Protons and neutrons are unstable and eventually decay. Protons have very, very long lifespans, to be sure, but eventually the Universe will have no atoms or molecules, as all the protons and neutrons will have decayed.


Of course, this is far, far into the future, but eventually the Universe and everything in it will die.


That isn't to say that there might not be other Universes out there ...

Cheers,

Michael

[davidm]

Ah, not so fast, Mr. Ranger! From the above-linked paper (sorry about the screwed up line breaks, but that's how it copies from the PDF and I haven't time to go in and fix it by hand. Also the exponentials are srewed up, alas. :sadcheer:):

Something strange is inevitable, if two conditions are true: Firstly, if our universe is infinite, or if there
are infinitely many other universes with the same laws and constants. And, secondly, if quantum theory
holds and there is, therefore, a finite number of possible states (that is due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty
relation there is no continuum of states and perhaps not even of space and time). If those two
assumptions are valid, then according to Alexander Vilenkin every combination of discrete finite
physical states are realized arbitrarily or infinitely often.38 (Imagine a lattice built randomly out of zeros
and ones: Every finite combination of zeros and ones, that is every local pattern occurs infinitely often.)
Thus, there is a kind of spatial eternal recurrence.
This also implies that we would have perfect copies: Doppelgänger which are identical to us as far as
quantum physics allows, and also Doppelgänger biographies, Doppelgänger earths, solar systems, Milky
Ways and even Hubble volumes. Their distances are vast, but not infinite, and they could even be
estimated, as Max Tegmark has shown: Our personal neighboring Doppelgänger should be 101029 meter
apart, and another Doppelgänger Hubble volume, that is a region of space exactly like our observable
universe, 1010115 meter.39 This means spatial eternal recurrence, but it could extend in time, which seems
to be true either in a future-eternal inflationary or cyclic scenario with a flat universe. Thus, even if the
history of our universe (and/or every universe) might lead to a global death, everything and every lifeform
might reappear over and over again, infinitely often both in space and time.

[The Lone Ranger]

Ah, not so fast, Mr. Ranger! From the above-linked paper (sorry about the screwed up line breaks, but that's how it copies from the PDF and I haven't time to go in and fix it by hand. Also the exponentials are srewed up, alas. :sadcheer:):

Something strange is inevitable, if two conditions are true: Firstly, if our universe is infinite, or if there
are infinitely many other universes with the same laws and constants.

That's why I was careful to point out that this doesn't really apply if there are multiple Universes ...

Sorry if I was unclear.

Cheers,

Michael

[davidm]

I took you to mean that even if our universe dies because of heat death, there may be multiple universes elsewhere that are alive and well. I take the above paper to mean that even if ours is the only universe, provided that it is infinite in time and space, it will recur. Oddly, though, there is an ambiguity in the quoted sentence:


Something strange is inevitable, if two conditions are true: Firstly, if our universe is infinite, or if there
are infinitely many other universes with the same laws and constants.

First the writer says that two conditions must be true, but then he uses an or to separate the conditions, implying that at least one but not both must be true for the stated condition (eternal recurrence) to hold. I will have to have another look at this.

More generally, I have read scientists who say that if the universe is infinite in temporal extent (and no reason to think time will end, no matter how cold and dark the place gets) quantum fluctuations guarantee that interesting things will still take place. The second law, after all, is statistical; the only reason we should expect ever greater states of disorder over order is because there are ever so many more ways for the universe to be, well, disordered.

But given infinite time and quantum fluctuations (or so I have read), we should expect that from time to time, even after our universe is cold and dead, virtual particles will wink into existence; that a box of Cheerios will wink into existence; that a player piano will wink into existence; and that an entire, brand-new universe will wink into existence (which may be how we got ours).

I just read this stuff, I don't vouch for it, so don't hit me! :wave:

[Angakuk]

Thus, the Universe will eventually suffer a "heat death" when everything reaches the same temperature -- at that point, no work will be possible, and so life will not be possible.


John 9:4
"We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work."

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation to quote scripture in a science discussion.

BTW, that is a quote from the New Testament Jesus, not the Old Testament Jesus.

[The Lone Ranger]

But given infinite time and quantum fluctuations (or so I have read), we should expect that from time to time, even after our universe is cold and dead, virtual particles will wink into existence; that a box of Cheerios will wink into existence; that a player piano will wink into existence; and that an entire, brand-new universe will wink into existence (which may be how we got ours).

That's the key point. Given an infinite amount of time, it's highly likely that a quantum fluctuation that produces another Universe will eventually occur. It wouldn't be our Universe, of course, but that's beside the point. And yes, that's probably exactly how our Universe came into existence. If you have an infinite amount of time to wait, sooner or later a quantum fluctuation on that scale is bound to happen. Or such is the general consensus. [But then, you start dealing with concepts like "Imaginary Time" and whatnot, and things get rather ... weird.]

Whether this means there would be an infinite number of Universes and that there would be recurrence is, as I understand it, a matter that is, at best, debatable. What does seem certain is that our Universe will eventually grow cold and die. Whether we'll all be reincarnated in future Universes is ... an interesting question.

Cheers,

Michael

[davidm]

But given infinite time and quantum fluctuations (or so I have read), we should expect that from time to time, even after our universe is cold and dead, virtual particles will wink into existence; that a box of Cheerios will wink into existence; that a player piano will wink into existence; and that an entire, brand-new universe will wink into existence (which may be how we got ours).

That's the key point. Given an infinite amount of time, it's highly likely that a quantum fluctuation that produces another Universe will eventually occur. It wouldn't be our Universe, of course, but that's beside the point. And yes, that's probably exactly how our Universe came into existence. If you have an infinite amount of time to wait, sooner or later a quantum fluctuation on that scale is bound to happen. Or such is the general consensus. [But then, you start dealing with concepts like "Imaginary Time" and whatnot, and things get rather ... weird.]

Whether this means there would be an infinite number of Universes and that there would be recurrence is, as I understand it, a matter that is, at best, debatable. What does seem certain is that our Universe will eventually grow cold and die. Whether we'll all be reincarnated in future Universes is ... an interesting question.

Cheers,

Michael


But, given an infinite amount of time, coupled with quantum fluctuations, doesn't it follow that any event with a nonzero probability of happening will happen an infinite number of times? Therefore I think our universe should not only recur down to the last detail, but it ought to do so an infinite number of times!

[The Lone Ranger]

Maybe.

I've heard that claim, and I've heard others argue that even in an infinite and infinitely-old Universe, no such thing is guaranteed.

I don't pretend to know, myself.

Cheers,

Michael

[Doctor X]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation to quote scripture in a science discussion.

Then if you are going to quote it, quote it accurately, to wit:

. . . that is a quote from the New Testament Jesus, not the Old Testament Jesus.

There is no "Old Testament Jesus." None.

Furthermore the different Juniors portrayed in the Synoptics and even Revelation predicted an eschaton that would have happened long ago.

Science wins again.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

There is no "Old Testament Jesus." None.

Duh! (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13588)

Anyway, if you want to get real picky it was a quotation from the "Gospel According to John" (NRSV) of a saying that is attributed to the character identified as Jesus. The quote was accurate, though I will admit to the possibility that he was not talking about entropy.

Sheesh! Go buy yourself a sense of humor. If you can't buy one, rent one. If you can't rent one, steal one.

[Doctor X]

WAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry to make you cry.

Relax.

J&D

[Angakuk]

Doctor X, as usual, greatly over rates his capacity to inflict emotional distress.

[Listener]

If there is infinite time then that would incorporate both the past and the future.

But in that case, there has already been infinite time (past) and we are about to go through a second infinite time ...

Treating infinity as a number leads to absurdities. Compared with unendingness (or unboundedness) the biggest finite number we can imagine is infinitesimal.

If there be reincarnation then I am a recurrence of an infinite number of previous "me"s.

You'd think I might have learned something ... :chin:

[Kyuss Apollo]

Whether we'll all be reincarnated in future Universes is ... an interesting question.

It's seems just as possible that in the Universe we are in now, we are reincarnations of ourselves from some past Universe(s) that is/are now old and thermodynamically dead or "inflated" out and dissipated.

Who's to say? :wish:

[But]

It's definitely possible. And that's what makes it a reality too. Not only is the state of affairs unsharp and indefinite as we try to look farther into the future, the same applies to the past. There is only so much information that can fit into a system, and as time passes, the knowledge of what brought this present state about diminishes, even in principle. In parallel universes terms, this would translate to worlds not only perpetually splitting, but merging as well. If you try to determine what happens "out there", it's the same thing. I may know with reasonable accuracy what is on my desk next to me right now, but when I look near the edge of the visible universe, everything falls out of focus because the wavelengths increase, so the accuracy with which I can measure things there decreases up to the point where I haven't ever interacted with the stuff out there in any way, which makes its state totally undefined (in my perspective). There are lots of live and dead cats out there.

[Dingfod]

I'm not sure I buy that there's an exact duplicate of this universe anywhere, ever. For example, "1, 2, 3, ... " is an infinite string of numbers that never repeats, and yet each number is distinct and individual. Rip me a new one.

[But]

I think you have a point. In fact, one could say that in a certain sense our universe and a (hypothetical) duplicate would be one and the same. As an example, if we compared a Dingfod (if I may be so bold) and an exact duplicate Dingfod somewhere else in the universe, we'd find that not only would their internal states be identical, but also the universe around them. The state of one Dingfod would uniquely determine the relative state of the rest of the universe if you consider the (universe without Dingfod) and Dingfod as subsystems of a composite system (the universe). The previous experiences of those two would (up to that moment in time) exactly match up, but in general they would then go their individual ways, but that is the case with one observer taken alone. Of course this makes less sense in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but then again, nothing makes sense there.

Of course, if my argument doesn't make sense, let me know.

[Dingfod]

That's just a theory. ;)

[davidm]

What if a demon crept up to you one day and said to you, "This life as you live it now and have lived it, you will have to live again and again, times without number, and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and all the unspeakably small and great in your life must return to you and everything in the same series and sequence - and in the same way this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and this same way this moment and I myself. The eternal hour glass of existence will be turned again and again - and you with it, you dust of dust!" - Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who thus spoke? Or have you experienced a a tremendous moment in which you would have answered him, "You are a God and never have I heard anything more divine!" If this thought gained power over you it would, as you are now, transform and perhaps crush you, the question in all and everything: "do you want this again and again, times without number?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon all your actions. Or how well would you have to be disposed towards yourself and towards life would you have to become to have no greater desire than this eternal sanction and seal?

--Nietzsche, the Eternal Recurrence

[Sock Puppet]

If reincarnation is inevitable, the Chinese government is soooo hosed (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13603).

[Uthgar the Brazen]

If reincarnation is inevitable, the Chinese government is soooo hosed (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13603).

Actually, they'll be in the black for, well, forever. Because I'm pretty sure most beings aren't getting permission, and I bet those fines stack up after a few millenia.

[Kyuss Apollo]

So this means I can still catch Hendrix at Woodstock...