If space and time are both truly infinite in length, then we are categorically just iterations. It would mean that this is only one of trillions of lives as a living thing you already lived, with an infinite number in the future.

"Naturalistic reincarnation" is the term for it and it's very rarely discussed, if at all. I could only find various random snippets like 14 year old youtube videos with 1k views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQJxxTN_28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtde0DHrnp4

The time in between lifetimes, even if trillions of years passed, would be relatively instantaneous as the passage of time is not perceived by the non-existent. Someone once replied to this with the monkeys typewriting shakespeare's entire works fallacy saying infinite time does not mean an improbable event would ever happen, but in this context he was referring the the improbability of the exact arrangement of particles to make a specific consciousness - which is a big assumption for a number of reasons, first it implies our particular conscious viewpoint as the perceiver/controller of a lifeform requires a specific arrangement of atoms of which there is nothing to suggest. It could be truly random, or perhaps all of us are the same conscious perceiver just divided and sliced to individual lifeforms, I suspect even millennia from now we'll not be any closer to answering these things.

>>81540299 (OP)
please do not scare the robots

>>81540299 (OP)
Bumping because I believe this is one of the few truly thought-provoking threads I've seen on this board in a long time and for that reason I want it to survive but unfortunately I'm not smart enough to actually contribute to it in any meaningful, substantial way.

>>81540299 (OP)
>but in this context he was referring the the improbability of the exact arrangement of particles to make a specific consciousness - which is a big assumption for a number of reasons, first it implies our particular conscious viewpoint as the perceiver/controller of a lifeform requires a specific arrangement of atoms of which there is nothing to suggest. It could be truly random, or perhaps all of us are the same conscious perceiver just divided and sliced to individual lifeforms, I suspect even millennia from now we'll not be any closer to answering these things.
read up on penrose's theory of consciousness it answered this for me

>>81540299 (OP)
>If space and time are both truly infinite in length
>It would mean that this is only one of trillions of lives as a living thing you already lived, with an infinite number in the future.
I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion.

There's the thought experiment that considering an infinite universe, and given an infinite amount of time--I think--that there is another instance of you somewhere off in the universe--essentially a multiverse within the universe. Heat Death is a thing, so infinite time probably doesn't mean anything with respect to multiple instances, and there's probably some Physfag bullshit going on that isn't as simple as the thought experiment makes it seem.

There's also the possibility that Physfags are wrong--surprised :O--about Heat Death, and that the universe will instead bounce back into a singularity, and that'll kick off the Big Bang again at some point. That might result in the same series of events transpiring all over again, ad nauseam, or maybe there are variations each new instance.

I don't know, and neither does any neet on this thread--especially not /sci/. This is just pseudo-philosophical faggotry of the highest order.
>>81540326
I remember someone saying that watching Vsauce gave them an existential crisis.

>>81540326
/r9k/ might be the only place to post this, /x/ jannies ban anything on a whim and so do /sci/ jannies and people aren't really on /b/ for any deep thoughts

>>81540350
Thanks anon I feel the same way most of the time until my mind gets into a flow state and I have brief moments of immense clarity that I feel need to be sent out somewhere and as a loner it's only really the mongolian basketweaving forum these days. I have a couple of normgroid friends who have a deep distaste for anything other than the occasional meme or small talk with bs like "how are you?" to exchange fake little pleasantries, the human population is so cynical of any sort of deep conversation as being whacky that most of them just go through life on autopilot, like I am guilty of myself too a lot of the time. Only thinking about the nature of our existence itself is the thing that I feel engages my brain more than anything else and it's something most people are very averse to for some reason. I suppose they bring things like politics and religion into it and assumptions get made and identity politics and stuff, so we can't just sit down and have an objective chat about the nature of existence.

>>81540370
Yes Penrose came up a lot when I was reading up on this subject, I disagree with the 'skeptics' who tried to label him a pseud and said the brain is no place for quantum states as quantum coherence would collapse too fast. We randomly guessed there are around 100 billion neurons in the average human brain, obviously there has been no count to confirm this. That is 100 billion repeating chances at quantum states and quantum coherence. No matter how fast it collapses, with numbers like 100 billion it'd be continuous.

>>81540464
iirc they actually already proved that there are quantum states in the brain. in microtubules, just like where penrose said theyd be, and they even go away when exposed to anesthetics

>>81540426
>another instance of you somewhere off in the universe
No I don't think of it like this, just that we are conscious perceivers of different lifeforms again over and over.

>There's also the possibility that Physfags are wrong--surprised :O--about Heat Death, and that the universe will instead bounce back into a singularity, and that'll kick off the Big Bang again at some point.
I strongly believe they are in that our universe is everything. Like galaxies, it's probably just one of an endless number once you zoom out. They are so fixated on this concept of our universe being an all-things container that has space and time within itself, rather than the universe existing within space. Which we can see with basic observations. Matter moves through space. Space doesn't move.

>That might result in the same series of events transpiring all over again, ad nauseam, or maybe there are variations each new instance.
It'd just be a random new universe, I don't see any reason why the big bang and everything from it would flow out in the exact same configuration over and over. Essentially it's just a super dense black hole which reached the sufficient mass and density for this cosmic event (we call it big bang) but there is nothing to suggest it'd be uniform to a previous or subsequent one, random arrangements of matter each time. Of course some basic things would still be true, there would still be galaxies, stars, planets, planets with life, etc. It'd be different each time though. Not just a variation, a complete new random instance I suppose.

>I don't know, and neither does any neet on this thread--especially not /sci/. This is just pseudo-philosophical faggotry of the highest order.
So we shouldn't talk about anything ever or we are pseuds and faggots? We should just avoid thinking about the nature of existence?

>>81540486
>I think
>I believe
Based retard.

>We should just avoid thinking about the nature of existence?
No, just that you should know what the fuck you're talking about before you make assertions, that which other assertions depend on. Especially when you consider anything Physics related. You're entire consideration boils down to "hmm, yes, maybe...".

You can still ponder about things that are beyond you--things you don't have any formal education in--just that it won't be a rigorous discussion, and won't have any merit; it's trivial, akin to discussing politics in a classroom and not being allowed to say the nigger-word.

>>81540299 (OP)
This would rely on matter being infinite.

>>81540547
How does anything in science come about? People think things first before testing theories. In this case there would be no realistic way to achieve this, even if I had all of earth's resources at my disposal. It's not like you can randomly apply the scientific method to theories about the nature of existence and the concept of other universes beyond the reaches of our own when we can barely see the light from the edge of our own. This is all just semantics, it'd suit you better if I presented everything I'm saying as a fact and avoided wording like "think" or "believe"? You are being preposterous.

>>81540552
Yes I suppose it could, there's nothing to suggest it isn't infinite from anything we have observed, we've certainly never observed an 'edge' to existence or confirmed that time is finite, so >>81540547 is flawed in that any answers we have from science in these areas are currently only theories too, i.e. "beliefs" and people "thinking" things. No one has proved anything. So he thinks no one should discuss things kek. Although I suppose even if matter were finite, but still vast and huge enough for universes to constantly arise, as long as time were infinite then naturalistic reincarnation would still hold true.

>>81540626
>there's nothing to suggest it isn't infinite from anything we have observed, we've certainly never observed an 'edge' to existence
What we have observed strongly suggests matter is finite. Could it be that traveling sufficiently far in a vector would reveal another universe and more matter? Absolutely. There's just no evidence.

>How does anything in science come about
Attempts at amending holes in theories that fall apart given special cases, or attempts to generalize theories. At least, that's the way I understand it. You don't just construct a working theory entirely from novel first thought. You don't just make up assumptions, there has to be a logical basis--in this case (CONK CREET) pre-established Physics--behind that assumption otherwise you're wasting time and resources proving wild chase of goose.

>It's not like you can randomly apply the scientific method to theories about the nature of existence
My point exactly.

>This would rely on matter being infinite
>we've certainly never observed an 'edge' to existence or confirmed that time is finite
Are you confounding matter with the universe itself?

This whole thread reads like a conversation between freshman Physics students who think they're hot shit, unknowingly about to be raped sweetly by first year course material, and subsequently drop out. Fall came early this year. The poles are shifting!

>>81540626
In my haste I forgot to give you your (you). See >>81540791

>>81540659
Yeah so far as the expanse of our universe I suppose, but I'd say if you travelled far enough in any given direction yes there'd more more such, just like there are many galaxies. I don't think it's presumptive of me to be open minded about this, in fact I reckon it's presumptive of most of the scientific establishment to presume our universe is the one and all, it could be one amongst trillions. If you assume space is endless in all directions - and assuming it is NOT is a lot more presumptive imho, as it'd require some sort of hard boundary where you just couldn't travel any further, what physical laws would that obey? - then it's inevitable it'd just be other universes like ours forever.

>>81540791
>there has to be a logical basis--in this case (CONK CREET) pre-established Physics--behind that assumption otherwise you're wasting time and resources proving wild chase of goose
Tell that to large swathes of modern science which is inundated with random theories like dark matter, spacetime, and even stuff they built upon other theories from before, like a stack of cards waiting to be toppled.

>My point exactly.
How so? I haven't used the scientific method for my theories, because it would be impossible. The scale of existence isn't something we can confirm or deny. Ideas and discussion are the only medium for it, to shoot them down as ridiculous and unproductive? 99% of the shit on the internet is unproductive. Why fixate on someone proposing theories about existence? At least offer arguments instead of just insults and "you can't prove shit so you are an idiot" level ad hominem, lad.

>whole thread reads like a conversation between freshman Physics students who think they're hot shit
I am in my mid thirties anon and have been obsessed with this topic for at least a decade. Do have a degree but not in physics.

>>81540299 (OP)
Thankfully in dumb so this is flying over my head