Natural Reincarnation?

[Xedan]

This was just a random idea I had about reincarnation, and it's in this sub-forum because it isn't religious at all. More of a scientific probability. We all know the universe is very good at recycling. Everything in the universe was here from the beginning in some form or another. So I started thinking, assuming humans are never wiped out and the universe will always be around, wouldn't it be possible that the exact chemicals and elements that created you combined again under the exact same conditions? Now it wouldn't be so much 'reincarnation' really as much as it would be like a clone. But in an infinite amount of time, shouldn't the possibility exist that everything that made you you could find their way back to each other?

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Indeed. Very unlikely. But indeed. Well done. *gives medal*

[Maria92]

Well, time as far as we know is finite; eventually, the universe will expand and die. If it maintained a status quo, then eventually, unlikely as it may be, an exact duplicate would be created, but as is, the probability of this occurrence happening within the next few billion years is not great. At some point, the stars will explode or cool, matter will drift away from all other matter, and the universe becomes a black pit. Or, at least, that's what's gonna happen, as far as we know.

[Taosaur]

Start adjusting your tolerances and considering how much of your biochemistry and, indeed, how much of your cognitive activity makes 'you' unique, versus the extent to which you are one of many contemporary examples of recurring roles or trends in human society, and mere reincarnation becomes a given.

[Photolysis]

Correct. I've mentioned this rather intriguing possibility a few times on this forum in the past, though I've always considered it as part of a universal set of big bangs and crunches rather than a single universe of infinite time, simply because the latter looks like you end up with heat death. But let's go through some of the implications if the above is true: We've already had this discussion millions of times in past universes In some universes due to a complete fluke you would retain some or potentially all 'memories' You, or someone identical to you would have seen everything that can physically happen Amusingly that last one would mean all kinds of bizarre things, such as commanding a statue to wave and then having all the correct atoms shift as appropriate by chance. Or that any fictional universe or characters would be reality assuming they are based on sound physical laws.

[Invader]

What would you be thinking if you had been around an infinite amount of times prior to now, existing in exactly the same way? You would be thinking whatever you thought in your past incarnation, and the one prior, and one prior to that, and so on. You could never "do something different". I'd think, "Well, there's no point then except to just live my life out then and enjoy it, since I can't know the difference. But then that's exactly what my past self would have done, so I'll do something different!" But you can't do something different. Your past self thought the same thing. Makes me want to shoot my brains.

[Xei]

The assumption that the universe will be around forever is of course wrong, though. There are far too many different possible genomes alone to allow for somebody exactly like you to arise by chance in the next few billion years that the Earth will be around for. And that's just considering genomes; for somebody to be exactly like you they'd also have to have exactly the same experiences, which will clearly never happen.

[Invader]

The assumption that the universe will be around forever is of course wrong, though. The assumption that that assumption is wrong, though backed up by good reason, is still only a "good" assumption. Imagine, Xei, if the universe's space was able to collapse fully in on itself at some point, and re-"big bang" with the same initial conditions that we are experiencing the result of. Do it as a thought experiment. For fun. Even if it isn't possible (is it possible, though? And if not, why?). How does that make you feel?

[Xedan]

You could never "do something different". I'd think, "Well, there's no point then except to just live my life out then and enjoy it, since I can't know the difference. But then that's exactly what my past self would have done, so I'll do something different!" But you can't do something different. Your past self thought the same thing. Well we wouldn't really be the same EXACT person mentally, because for that we'd have to be given the same exact conditions and choices all through our lives. The decisions we're forced to make and conditions we're forced to live in could change us drastically. It's just like how when they clone the sheep, they still retain a unique personality. Because, as I stated above, unless all your memories arise too, this would be more like chance cloning. Xei, why must you always contradict yourself. I'm sure you don't believe in intelligent design, because you're "right until proven wrong" atheist. So think about this, if we're SO intricate, how did we form in the first place? If we formed once, we should be able to form again in an infinite time line. And as invader pointed out, your theory is only mildly better in likelihood. it wasn't too long ago that the steady state theory was cold hard fact. Maybe in 100 years we'll find out the universe is a sphere and we can never get too far from everything else to die in ice. We don't know, and only dumb-asses assume they know. I (more or less) know you, and I'm sure you don't wanna look like a dumb-ass. So realize that theories are just that, theories.

[Xei]

Imagine, Xei, if the universe's space was able to collapse fully in on itself at some point, and re-"big bang" with the same initial conditions that we are experiencing the result of. Do it as a thought experiment. For fun. Even if it isn't possible (is it possible, though? And if not, why?). How does that make you feel? Well, in our universe, it isn't going to happen. Based on our current knowledge of physics along with our knowledge of the mass and energy of the universe, it's certain to keep expanding and then just 'fizzle out' due the the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is of course possible that there are a plethora of universes, but that isn't what the OP said. Xei, why must you always contradict yourself. What? Please give me examples of where I have been known to contradict myself. Also explain how my statement was inherently contradictory. :l If we formed once, we should be able to form again in an infinite time line. And as invader pointed out, your theory is only mildly better in likelihood. it wasn't too long ago that the steady state theory was cold hard fact. Steady state was never a cold hard fact because it never had any cold hard evidence. I'm not actually sure what 'my theory' is supposed to be? Do you mean the Big Bang theory? If so, I'd like to ask you what on Earth 'only a theory' is supposed to mean. There's 'only' a large amount of evidence supporting it and no evidence supporting the alternative.

[Invader]

it's certain to keep expanding and then just 'fizzle out' due the the 2nd law of thermodynamics That's anticlimactic. Is the expansion at least decelerating? Or is it decelerating at a rate that's approaching some constant rate of expansion that's lower than our current rate of expansion but greater than zero expansion?

[DuB]

As long as we're fretting about which is the most appropriate forum for this discussion, I would point out that this topic has nothing directly to do with science and everything to do with philosophy. Well we wouldn't really be the same EXACT person mentally, because for that we'd have to be given the same exact conditions and choices all through our lives. The decisions we're forced to make and conditions we're forced to live in could change us drastically. It's just like how when they clone the sheep, they still retain a unique personality. Because, as I stated above, unless all your memories arise too, this would be more like chance cloning. Why, given an infinite time scale and the premises supplied by your argument, would it be possible for all of our exact bodily molecules to reconstitute themselves, but impossible for this me-clone to go through all the same "conditions and choices" as myself? Is that just too improbable? More interestingly, if it did happen, in what sense would we be justified in asserting that this new thing is literally the "same person"? Under what conditions does my current personal identity leap forward into the eons and become tied to this new thing? Xei, why must you always contradict yourself. I'm sure you don't believe in intelligent design, because you're "right until proven wrong" atheist. So think about this, if we're SO intricate, how did we form in the first place? If we formed once, we should be able to form again in an infinite time line. And as invader pointed out, your theory is only mildly better in likelihood. it wasn't too long ago that the steady state theory was cold hard fact. Maybe in 100 years we'll find out the universe is a sphere and we can never get too far from everything else to die in ice. We don't know, and only dumb-asses assume they know. I (more or less) know you, and I'm sure you don't wanna look like a dumb-ass. So realize that theories are just that, theories. This is ridiculous. I'm talking about your reply, not the idea itself. You make a thread asking if people think this thing is a possibility, and when someone opines that they don't and offers reasons why not, you launch into a diatribe against them personally? Indeed, no one wants to "look like a dumb-ass," but apparently for some people it's unavoidable.

[Xedan]

I attacked him because he always, always, states theory as fact if it has proof to back it up. "The assumption that the universe will be around forever is of course wrong, though" wasn't an opinion, he was saying it couldn't possibly be so. How does the saying go? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? The universe can only be guessed of. Somewhere around 90% of science is theory. And since the universe is so strange, it is not unlikely that the eventual end (if there is one) will be something we never imagined. And no, Xei, it is NOT certain that we will keep expanding. Granted, "contradicting yourself" was something (mostly) that only applied to that specific comment. I meant to refer to the fact that you always exaggerate everything into 100% certainties, and discount any evidence otherwise. Which is, in a way, contradictory. You discount everything in r/s that isn't taught in text books, yet whatever you say must be true. And when I referred to "your theory" I was talking about the theory that the universe will keep expanding and just fizzle out. That is not the "Big Bang" theory, because yours predicts the end, not the beginning. And back to DuB's comment. Well, it very well could happen that way. Especially in the theory that the universe 'crunches' and 'bangs' multiple times. But, assuming at least the date is different (which arguably may not be true), that could very well effect you in a strange way, like a butterfly effect. But who knows, maybe you do become the exact same person in a world seemingly no different. Maybe we already are experiencing that. Now, this is entirely thought up and not held to any science, but while you may never actually be living in the future, if the conditions were close enough your personality may very well be close enough for it to be as if you had lived again. And a couple ending comments to Xei: Yes, the Steady State theory was a widely accepted fact. In fact, had the big bang theory not come along, there's a HUGE chance you'd be in here preaching the Steady State theory as absolute fact, like you are the big bang theory (or rather, the fizzling out theory, or whatever it's called). And also, at what point can you REALLY be certain a theory is right? Think about atoms. They do exist, and that's why many people have come to conclusion about them over time. The first theories weren't totally wrong (there were atoms, and some of what they guessed was true) because they were scratching the surface as best they could. They had no reason to think there were smaller parts of an atom. So just think about the theories you preach as likely, not certain. Because there may be a much bigger piece of information that we're missing.

[Xei]

I attacked him because he always, always, states theory as fact if it has proof to back it up. "The assumption that the universe will be around forever is of course wrong, though" wasn't an opinion, he was saying it couldn't possibly be so. How does the saying go? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? The universe can only be guessed of. Somewhere around 90% of science is theory. And since the universe is so strange, it is not unlikely that the eventual end (if there is one) will be something we never imagined. What do you even mean, '90% of science is theory'?? That has no meaning at all. What do you think theory means? You don't understand science. Saying something is a 'theory' does not negate it. A theory is a very well established scientific truth. It's as certain as one can possibly be about anything outside of the domain of mathematics. Newton's theory of gravitation is as sure a thing as the fact that shooting yourself in the foot hurts, but I very much doubt you would do the latter due to it being 'just a theory'. Scientific truth is as true as something can practically be so considering alternatives as if they are realistic is simply not constructive to anything. What I said was a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, which has been observed in millions of experiments in thousands of different circumstances and has never been observed not to happen. Discounting the consequences is as pointless as discounting that the effect of dropping a heavy object causes it to fall towards the ground. And no, Xei, it is NOT certain that we will keep expanding. Granted, "contradicting yourself" was something (mostly) that only applied to that specific comment. I meant to refer to the fact that you always exaggerate everything into 100% certainties, and discount any evidence otherwise. What? If you read what I said you'll find I stated what observations the certainty was dependent on. Your criticisms are patently not even true. You discount everything in r/s that isn't taught in text books, yet whatever you say must be true. I discount things that people can't give any evidence or rational argument for. Is there something wrong with this? :l And when I referred to "your theory" I was talking about the theory that the universe will keep expanding and just fizzle out. That is not the "Big Bang" theory, because yours predicts the end, not the beginning. No you weren't, I hadn't mentioned it at that time. And a couple ending comments to Xei: Yes, the Steady State theory was a widely accepted fact. In fact, had the big bang theory not come along, there's a HUGE chance you'd be in here preaching the Steady State theory as absolute fact, like you are the big bang theory (or rather, the fizzling out theory, or whatever it's called). No I wouldn't, because I wouldn't have any empirical evidence for it, nor would I have any logical reason to assert that the universe was static rather than expanding. It's not even true what you keep asserting. Steady state, which posited a continuous creation of matter throughout the universe, and the Big Bang, which posited a single creation event, were both equally recognised hypotheses. It was only when they found some empirical evidence that they discounted Steady state and accepted the Big Bang. They had no reason to think there were smaller parts of an atom. So just think about the theories you preach as likely, not certain. Because there may be a much bigger piece of information that we're missing. There was no evidence either way to suggest that atoms had or didn't have substructure. Until some empirical consequences were observed, discussing the possibility was therefore a non-issue. Absence of evidence was indeed not evidence of absence. Trying to apply this to the fizzle theory though is just confused, because in this case there is evidence and hence evidence against the contrary. That's anticlimactic. Is the expansion at least decelerating? Or is it decelerating at a rate that's approaching some constant rate of expansion that's lower than our current rate of expansion but greater than zero expansion? It's not really certain at the moment, I don't think. Most likely the expansion will slow to some constant rate, as you say.

[Xedan]

I don't feel like going throug ht the trouble of quoting at this hour, so I'll just number our responses. @1: A scientific theory being the most likely doesn't make it a fact. And it is idiotic at best to compare our knowledge of the universe to our knowledge of gravity. Plus gravity is complicated by the whole thing about relativity. Anyways, think of it like a seven day weather forecast. That's the exact information they gather, and it is the best they can do. That doesn't make it right. And this is a trillion year forecast. @3: I've already stated in COUNTLESS threads things that were in fact evidence, which you dismissed without disproving. They are evidence still, whether you think they're true or not, until proven false, or anywhere near false. This is not on topic anyways, other than the part about your specific post. @4: I was already well acquainted with the theory and it was a correct guess. I inferred that to the point of not even realizing you hadn't said it, simply because I took that into consideration during the making of the OP. I'll get around to the rest tomorrow.

[DuB]

How does the saying go? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Absence of evidence was indeed not evidence of absence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Xei]

That makes no sense in the situation I described when you have two equally likely propositions, P and not P. By your reasoning absence of evidence of both P and not P is evidence for the negation of P and not P, i.e. not P and P, which is a contradiction.

[DuB]

I was not actually paying close attention to the context from which the quotes came, so if I was misleading or wrong, I apologize. I was simply trying to draw your attention to the newly created thread, since discussion in this thread was what prompted my writing that thread. To be clear, I was not proposing an argument specifically against the statements made by either of you here in this thread.

[Photolysis]

More interestingly, if it did happen, in what sense would we be justified in asserting that this new thing is literally the "same person"? Under what conditions does my current personal identity leap forward into the eons and become tied to this new thing? I'd suggest that as long as the original matter, or rather, energy (if we consider a crunch-bang cycle where matter is not going to survive) is used, then philosophically speaking it's still your personal identity rather that of a clone that acts exactly as you do.

[Scatterbrain]

I'd suggest that as long as the original matter, or rather, energy (if we consider a crunch-bang cycle where matter is not going to survive) is used, then philosophically speaking it's still your personal identity rather that of a clone that acts exactly as you do. For all we know, it doesn't have to be the "same matter", because that idea doesn't make sense physically. There's nothing special about the atoms that make up a person. Also, we live through a constant change of structure and exchange of matter with the outside, which makes both the concepts of "same matter" and "same form" redundant to individual identity.

[Photolysis]

For all we know, it doesn't have to be the "same matter", because that idea doesn't make sense physically. There's nothing special about the atoms that make up a person. Also, we live through a constant change of structure and exchange of matter with the outside, which makes both the concepts of "same matter" and "same form" redundant to individual identity. I didn't want to go off on a massive tangent, but elsewhere I've argued that several properties determine the identity of an object: position in spacetime, the matter, and continuity. This was based off several thought experiments regarding a teleporter. I can try and dig up the thread if anyone's interested. Whilst there's nothing intrinsically special about the matter that makes us up - it changes all the time of course - if we're talking about the idea of preserving personal identity through the destruction of the universe (which was what my discussion was based on), then retaining the matter/energy from the "last working configuration" is pretty essential. In our normal everyday life, continuity does that.

[Xei]

I'd quite like to see that thread actually.

[Xedan]

For all we know, it doesn't have to be the "same matter", because that idea doesn't make sense physically. There's nothing special about the atoms that make up a person. Also, we live through a constant change of structure and exchange of matter with the outside, which makes both the concepts of "same matter" and "same form" redundant to individual identity. Well, to a point. I don't believe I used the term matter, but disregard it if I did. All that I was really concerned about was the DNA and all that being the same. And form is more or less you, because your DNA dictates a good chunk of your appearance, even though the environment does, of course, play a big role.

[Scatterbrain]

I didn't want to go off on a massive tangent, but elsewhere I've argued that several properties determine the identity of an object: position in spacetime, the matter, and continuity. This was based off several thought experiments regarding a teleporter. I can try and dig up the thread if anyone's interested. Whilst there's nothing intrinsically special about the matter that makes us up - it changes all the time of course - if we're talking about the idea of preserving personal identity through the destruction of the universe (which was what my discussion was based on), then retaining the matter/energy from the "last working configuration" is pretty essential. In our normal everyday life, continuity does that. As with matter, there's nothing inherently special about a certain position in spacetime, I don't see how that could be relevant to recreating an individual. Same thing with continuity, which is really just a mental concept,. For the type of reincarnation described in the OP to happen, all it would be needed was for the same form to be recreated. But the person would then be exposed to different circumstances than it's other incarnation, and so would develop in a different direction.

[DuB]

But the person would then be exposed to different circumstances than it's other incarnation, and so would develop in a different direction. As I mentioned above, this does not follow from the premises supplied by the original argument, which include infinite time. If it's possible for a person to be physically recreated down to identical molecules, why is it impossible for this new thing to undergo the same "circumstances" as the original thing? Both are vanishingly improbable to be sure, but if the first case is possible then the second must be possible as well.