# Don't Theories of Infinite Universes Imply a Type of Reincarnation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836 "2005-10-05T04:00:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/21 "2005-10-05T22:26:18Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > We know the universe is expanding because of the “Doppler effect”. Think of the EEEWWWWEEEWWWWEWWwwwwww sound an ambulance makes as it gets closer and then finally moves away from you. That change in pitch is the Doppler effect and it works the same with light (the color changes instead of the sound). Astronomers can tell that no matter where we look in the sky, everything is moving away from us. Since we are not in the center of the universe, it is reasonible to assume EVERYTHING is moving away from everything else. > > Also, the universe is expanding like a rising loaf of bread. The galaxies aren’t moving trough space (well locally they are), they are moving with space. Kind of like raisins in the bread. Right but a loaf of bread has a center and an edge, does the universe have a center or an edge? I can buy that the further we go out into the universe the more likely it is that we would find a similar pattern with slight variation. Though everything could be completely unique, and there still be infinite possibility for variation. In your basis of measure, you are still making a comparison, you are comparing it to the wavelength of light, and while there might be evidence that galaxies are moving away from us, that doesn’t imply expansion of the universe as a whole. > [@](#): > > No. Size has a objective physical definition; you can use such things as the planck distance, the amount of wavelengths a particular frequency of light takes to stretch a distance, and so forth. I’m willing to buy that physical objects have an objective physical definition but… > [@](#): > > The universe doesn’t need to have an edge to expand; spacetime itself is stretching. Scientists know the universe is expanding because the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. Solar winds aren’t nearly strong enough to move stars significantly. doesn’t the term expansion start to lose meaning if something infinitely large is expanding? As I said before all sizes are determined only in their comparison to other things. An atom is infinitely large in and of itself given no basis for comparison. It is smaller than I am, it is bigger than an electron. Also don’t time and space themselves start to change processes when confronted with say, vast distances, the speed of light, or a black hole? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/22 "2005-10-05T22:31:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > As I said before all sizes are determined only in their comparison to other things. An atom is infinitely large in and of itself given no basis for comparison. It is smaller than I am, it is bigger than an electron. Also don’t time and space themselves start to change processes when confronted with say, vast distances, the speed of light, or a black hole? No. There is a smallest possible distance ( the Planck length ); that provides an objective reference point. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/23 "2005-10-05T23:01:46Z")
They don’t imply anything except that no one has a better explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/24 "2005-10-05T23:20:18Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > A simple, but easily understood point on infinity. > > There are an infinite amount of prime numbers. > > However, the number 4 is not among them. > > Thus, there may be a truly infinite amount of worlds… but any specific world may not exist within them. You example doesn’t address a key part of my OP. I am not talking about an infinity creating every weird thing imaginable. A key part of my theory is that it would simply replicate something like we already know to exist. We know our consciousness has a probability of greater than zero so it is my understanding that it must occur again given infinite universes. I stress the probability known to be greater than zero part. The [Weak anthropic principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) adds support to the idea that something strange is going on. The values of basic forces in our universe are too perfect to suggest a one-off event. Small changes in any of them wouldn’t leave us without much of a universe at all. That leaves us with two possibilities: either the universe was purposely created by a divine being or it was the result of chance from the creation of an infinite number of multi-verses. Many people blindly accept the idea of one Big Bang, one life, and one death and that’s it little too easily. From what I can figure the odds seem to be much greater for the other alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/25 "2005-10-06T02:36:33Z")
Just because something can be, doesn’t mean it must be. The number 4 is simply twice another prime number. But it still isn’t prime. It is possible both time and space _are_ granular, with smallest units of both existing. They would be planck space and planck time. This would be roughly the size of a single superstring, if I recall correctly. If superstrings exist. It is possible universes are connected, if brane theory is correct. It is possible they are not. The thing is, you’re confusing copenhagen many-worlds theory with a few other multiple-universe theories, and adding mysticism to both. You might enjoy the book, ‘The Dancing Wu-Li Masters’, but you must understand it’s at best an analogy, and thus utter crap for figuring things out with. At a certain level, you have to know and understand math that I don’t know and understand, to explain how the universes work. There are certainly infinitely many possibilities, but they are constrained. The flow of information out of one universe and into another would be possible… but you seem to be hypothesizing a form of ‘heaven’ from quantum physics, and I don’t see as it’s much more useful than trying to prove god exists in an ontological proof. You can _do_ it. “God is Perfect. Everything that must exist, exists. A Perfect thing must have the quality of Existance, or it would not be perfect. God exists.” But it’s just not the same thing without the math behind it. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/26 "2005-10-06T03:44:52Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I am not talking about an infinity creating every weird thing imaginable. A key part of my theory is that it would simply replicate something like we already know to exist. We know our consciousness has a probability of greater than zero so it is my understanding that it must occur again given infinite universes. > > I stress the probability known to be greater than zero part. I don’t buy this. I grant you, _if_ there was a non-zero probability of your consciousness (or a consciousness exactly identical to yours, which I’ll concede is the same thing) arising in a given volume of space over a given period of time, then I can’t see a problem with saying the probabilty of reoccurence goes to 1 (i.e., 100%) as the size of the universe goes to infinity. However, I don’t agree that the probability really is non-zero. Suppose the universe can occupy any one of an infinite number of different states. Then the probability of any particular state being occupied is zero. Does this mean a particular state (say the one in which your consciousness exists) can’t occur? No, because _some_ state has to occur, and they are _all_ infinitely unlikely. But when that state does occur, it’s not evidence that it has a non-zero probability. With infinite possibilities, the notion of probability fails. As an example, say I select a random number between 0 and infinity. The odds of me picking, say, 7, would be 1/infinity, in other words, zero. But at the same time, I’m just as likely to pick 7 as anything else. But if I _do_ happen to pick seven, that doesn’t indicate it will necessarily occur again, even if I go on picking forever. (Some people may say that it’s impossible to pick a random number between 0 and infinity, but I’m not sure how this is any more paradoxical than talking about the probability of a particular thing occuring in an infinite universe.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/27 "2005-10-06T03:48:12Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Suppose the universe can occupy any one of an infinite number of different states. Suppose it can’t ? Really, the assumption behind this kind of speculation is that the universe is capable of only a finite number of states. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/28 "2005-10-06T03:57:51Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I am not talking about an infinity creating every weird thing imaginable. A key part of my theory is that it would simply replicate something like we already know to exist. We know our consciousness has a probability of greater than zero so it is my understanding that it must occur again given infinite universes. Key technical point: With an uncountably infinite number of possible events, events of probability 1 are not guaranteed to occur. So unless you can show that infinite universes lead to a countable number of possible outcomes, your theory is dead in the water. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/29 "2005-10-06T04:05:41Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Suppose it can’t ? Really, the assumption behind this kind of speculation is that the universe is capable of only a finite number of states. OK, but is that a reasonable assuption? I suppose if there’s only a finite number of possible positions, like spacetime is really some huge 4-dimensional array or something, then I could see there being a finite (albeit enormously, unthinkably large) number of states. But if space is really continuous, then it seems like even one particle could occupy infinitely many positions, and thus infinitely many states. Is there reason to think position is a discrete quantity? I guess there’s also a question of whether two states can be close enough that they’re effectively the same, but I’m not even sure what that would mean. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/30 "2005-10-06T04:20:59Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Is there reason to think position is a discrete quantity? The Planck length and Planck time ( smallest possible quantities ) might count. Or they might not, I’m getting kinda out of my depth here… ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/31 "2005-10-06T06:04:55Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The [Planck length](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length) and [Planck time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) ( smallest possible quantities ) might count. Or they might not, I’m getting kinda out of my depth here… [links added by me] I don’t think it’s really correct to say that these are the smallest possible length and time. They’re actually units of length and time that are defined solely in terms of fundamental constants. (See the links I added above.) They just happen to be really, really small. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/32 "2005-10-06T07:45:24Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > [links added by me] > > I don’t think it’s really correct to say that these are the smallest possible length and time. They’re actually units of length and time that are defined solely in terms of fundamental constants. (See the links I added above.) They just happen to be really, really small. Look at the definitions you linked, for example : > [@Wikipedia](#): > > The Planck length is the smallest amount of length with significance, as below this length quantum laws reign, meaning all measurements are nonsense. They really are the smallest possible ( or at least meaningful ) length and time. That’s a major point of quantum mechanics; everything has a smallest possible unit; nothing is continuous. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/33 "2005-10-06T08:12:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Maybe it’s the case that consciousness doesn’t disappear at all when we die, but merely changes perspective. Hell, even a relatively minor brain injury can totally eliminate consciousness (in both senses). I know you’re a religious mystic, but only a mystic, religious or otherwise, could believe that consciousness in any “perspective” could survive complete and utter non-function of the brain. Scientifically, the idea is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/34 "2005-10-06T08:17:58Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Now, if _this_ is the case, then I suppose that just as you could say that there are an infinite number of points outside that region on the line, you could say that there are “an infinite number of universes outside our own”, which conjures up those centaurs and planetwide shouts of “Cocksucker”. Of course I am not being serious, but this last is an extremely odd thing to say! What is happening in your part of the universe that would prompt one to produce that remark? Do you feel persecuted or something? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/35 "2005-10-06T09:17:23Z")
Apologies for the obscure reference, **ambushed** - I’ve got [Deadwood](http://www.hbo.com/deadwood/cast/actor/ianmcshane.shtml) on the brain at the moment! **mswas** , the universe **is** space. Our Earthbound intuition of space in which each space has a “next to” and each time has a “before” leads us astray when considering _all_ of space and time (spacetime). The galaxies aren’t moving away from us - they’re getting further away because [space itself is expanding](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147). In any case, the universe is _not_ infinitely large (except insofar as that space is _all the space there is_) or infinitely old (except insofar as that time is _all the time there is_: the universe has [always existed everywhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743).) ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/36 "2005-10-06T10:07:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Look at the definitions you linked, for example : > > > [@](#): > > > > The Planck length is the smallest amount of length with significance, as below this length quantum laws reign, meaning all measurements are nonsense. > > They really are the smallest possible ( or at least meaningful ) length and time. That’s a major point of quantum mechanics; everything has a smallest possible unit; nothing is continuous. I guess I should read links before posting them. I only read the one on the Planck Length, which – unlike the Planck time article – doesn’t mention this business of “smallest meaningful measurement.” At any rate, I’m not sure I buy it. As far as I know, the uncertainty principle allows for you to (in principal) make _arbitrarily pricise_ measurements of position at the cost of increasingly imprecise information on momentum. On further Googling, I turn up some articles that essentially claim that below lengths on the order of the Planck length you need a theory of quantum gravity to know what’s going on. Roughly, the reason seems to be that for very small length scales the uncertainty in momentum is huge, so the average momentum (and thus energy) is huge. Big energies require relativity, small length scales require quantum mechanics, so now you’re stuck using two theories that are currently incompatible. But _without_ having a theory of quantum gravity, I don’t see how we could definitively say that changes in the configuration of a system below the Planck length are irrelevant to the macroscopic state of the system. Or that each Planck length sized block has only a finite number of states, or whatever we’d need to say to conclude the universe has a finite number of states. But I’m out of my depth here too . . . any high-energy physicists want to comment? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/37 "2005-10-06T10:15:18Z")
> [@tim](#): > > I don’t see how we could definitively say that changes in the configuration of a system below the Planck length are irrelevant to the macroscopic state of the system. In _The Elegant Universe_, string theorist Brian Greene proposes that, actually, configurations smaller then the Planck length are effectively **equivalent mirror images** of the same configurations _larger_ than the Planck length. That is, that the universe exists simultaneously on two scales, and by observing one you are effectively observing the other equivalent. In other words, the universe is _both_ Little and Large. [How frightening](http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/littleandlarge_1299001914.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/38 "2005-10-06T12:59:26Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > It is my understanding (perhaps mistaken) that there are an infinite number of possible permutations of the physical “constants” that underlie the properties of any given universe, and that this category of infinity is in a formal mathematical sense “greater” than the mere “counting” (denumerable) infinity of the number of universes. (I can’t recall the proper mathematical nomenclature, but I’m sure many posters here do). Thus, if this is true (and of course I’m completely open to correction) not even an infinity of universes will guarantee an exact duplicate of the current universe and all its infinitely unpredictable quantum history. First of all, an infinite sequence is not guarenteed to contain all permutations. 111111111… is an infinite sequence but does not contain the number 0. Even an infinite, non-repeating sequence is not guarenteed to contain all permutations. 1011011101111011111… is an infinite, non-repeating sequence yet doesn’t contain the permutation 00. Also, assuming the physical constants are indeed constant, the universe has a fixed and finite amount of information which means that the number of permutations is a finite number. Furthermore, if you assume that the laws of the universe are deterministic, then the universe can be modelled as a single transition Finite State Machine. Since each state only has one transition, for every state to be visited, then each state can only have one input. That is, 2 different permutations of the universe cannot lead to the same outcome 1 time quanta later. Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics essentially states that this DOES occur, it’s not theoretically possible to build a universe in which every permutation is acted out. Even if that were not the case, assuming all the laws of physics still hold, it’s impossible to posit universes that break the laws of physics. Assuming mass/energy constantcy is true, then there will never be a universe with a single electron or a universe completely filled with lead. Assuming the speed of light is a universal speed limit, you will never have a universe in which every particle moves from one side to the other side in only a few minutes. In fact, given what we know about most single transition FSMs, it’s likely that the universe will oscillate between a couple of different permutations for ever. A pseudo-random number generator is a single transition FSM and it’s proved surprisingly hard to build one of those that doesn’t oscillate between a small subset of values. It’s unlikely that physical processes would do much better. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/39 "2005-10-06T19:50:46Z")
I never took Calculus so I don’t really know how to derive those equations, but Planck’s time and space measures are still based upon comparison. It compares the speed of light in a vacuum to his constant and gravity. Measurement is still based upon comparison. Time and Space have no size, and therefore cannot expand or contract. It seems to me that the idea of it expanding or contracting is based upon the collective phenomenalogical field of humanity. As our phenomenalogical field expands, so would the perception of time and space. Take focus for instance. If we focus a telescope on the Andromeda galaxy, then it will be larger than it would be if we took a more panoramic view which centered upon it. So if we had a previous perception of empty space as being not worth much note other than it intervened between our perception and that which we were perceiving, then the thing being perceived would loom larger in our perception, as it would not be compared to anything next to it. Like my apartment building is smaller next to the Empire State Building, but larger next to a Cooper Mini. This is something I am aware of consistently living in New York where we have all these monolithic buildings. I see 80 story buildings daily, and they seem kind of small in comparison to 60 and 100 story buildings. However, I can go to a town like Phoenix Arizona and see a 40 story building and think that it looks really huge, because there is nothing looming next to it that is similar in size. So now that we increasingly study the intervening space and it starts to obtain discernable properties, it seems larger in comparison to the things we are comparing it to, but is it really becoming larger, or is it just a matter of shifting perspective? Would Planck’s length and time have any meaning at all if we were not measuring things with it? And if we are measuring things with it, then are we also doing the converse and measuring it with things? The unit of measure is simply a tool we use to help us understand the universe around us. So if we make a “smallest unit of measure” and adhere to it, then I suppose it would by default cause the universe to “grow”. But we could just as well say the planck length was “shrinking” as we added more knowledge of that which was being measured to our phenomenological field. As far as keeping this on topic goes. I’d like to say that just because there are infinite possibilities doesn’t mean that patterns must necessarily repeat. We create models in our imaginations that are similiar but not the same as our Earth, so that would be the alternate universe we are discussing. If thoughts are physical like SentientMeat says, then perhaps we are either discovering alternate worlds that exist, or creating them, that when we imagine them they come to life and exist. When we say that there are infinite possibilities, the key word is still possible. Just because there is another split timeline where there is an alternate Earth doesn’t mean that it’s going to violate the rules of logic. So there might be another me that is a Pro-Football player on another Earth, but it’s not as likely that there is another me just sitting on the moon for no apparent reason. Though perhaps other universes are not bound by the same logic as ours. Also, if the other me is a pro-football player then how exactly is it that he is me? I am the only me in the universe, because if there is a slight difference, then it’s different and that makes it unique, even if it resembles me. To me the idea of reincarnation is not really what people here are understanding it to be. The pattern persists. If it has ever existed it will always exist as time is eternal, only our measurement of it is linear. So these persistent patterns then come in contact with newly forming consciousnesses that are defining their own identities. Some are more powerful than others, some are specific and some are archetypal. For instance, if I really identify strongly with Jesus Christ, then a portion of me is a reincarnation of Jesus Christ because the meme that he left behind has informed greatly upon my sense of identity. However, there are other less specific archetypal forms of reincarnation that persist. Like the Mothering or the Fathering type. Other ideas that form our identity are when we were born in the year, what forces were at play, whether it was hot/cold/windy/rainy/massive solar flares/war/famine etc… I personally don’t believe in individual consciousness in any more of a sense than we are individual parts that make up a whole, but it is the whole that is conscious not the individual. So the consciousness of a brain dead individual would persist in the will of those around him that have been affected by them, and are providing the political will that keeps them alive i.e. life support and feeding tubes. Also if the brain is dead, then our body doesn’t necessarily stop feeling, but it stops putting the different perceptions together in any meaningful way. So the consciousness is diminished. Also, perhaps perception of time is asymptotic, so the consciousness persists eternally but only up until the point that the brain ceases functioning. This accounts for “My life flashed before my eyes” sorts of experiences. Erek ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/40 "2005-10-07T09:16:36Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Time and Space have no size, and therefore cannot expand or contract. How do you explain the galactic redshift and the [CMB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMB_and_the_Big_Bang)? Spacetime has a [curvature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), a _‘shape’_, agreed? How can something of no size be [observably](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1919_eclipse_negative.jpg) curved or warped? > [@](#): > > So now that we increasingly study the intervening space and it starts to obtain discernable properties, it seems larger in comparison to the things we are comparing it to, but is it really becoming larger, or is it just a matter of shifting perspective? No, we’re not just _finding more galaxies_, we’re seeing the ones we’ve already found _get further away_. > [@](#): > > Would Planck’s length and time have any meaning at all if we were not measuring things with it? Again, ‘meaning’ is a cognitive output from (at least) a human brain. No brains, no ‘meaning’. Just like those 14 billion years between here and the North Pole of the universe. > [@](#): > > But we could just as well say the planck length was “shrinking” as we added more knowledge of that which was being measured to our phenomenological field. Then input that new number into the relevant equations, yielding testable predictions (such as the width of the fringes in [electron interference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngs_double-slit_experiment#Explanation_of_experiment) or something). If the length has changed, it will have observable consequences. I can assure you that the Planck length has _not_ changed in the last decades. > [@](#): > > If thoughts are physical like SentientMeat says, then perhaps we are either discovering alternate worlds that exist, or creating them, that when we imagine them they come to life and exist. Imaginary friends do not ‘come to life and exist’ any more than Photoshopping a digital image changes the object you photographed, agreed? > [@](#): > > Just because there is another split timeline where there is an alternate Earth doesn’t mean that it’s going to violate the rules of logic. But, perhaps, the rules of _statistics_ if its probability of being observed is still negligible even given the lifetime and extent of the universe. > [@](#): > > If it has ever existed it will always exist as time is eternal, only our measurement of it is linear. Dinosaurs don’t exist now, agreed? The existed _then_, and it will forever be _true_ that they existed then, but that does not make them _actually exist_ for all times. > [@](#): > > So the consciousness of a brain dead individual would persist in the will of those around him that have been affected by them Again, that is surely not _his_ consciousness any more than a photograph of an object _is_ the object. > [@](#): > > Also if the brain is dead, then our body doesn’t necessarily stop feeling, but it stops putting the different perceptions together in any meaningful way. So the consciousness is diminished. Diminished in _direct relation_ to a **physical** change (_ie._ necrosis of the neurons). Funny, that. > [@](#): > > Also, perhaps perception of time is asymptotic, so the consciousness persists eternally but only up until the point that the brain ceases functioning. This accounts for “My life flashed before my eyes” sorts of experiences. Or more easily explained by a brief surge of reactivated memories, which have [as physical a basis](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/528617.stm) as the images stored in a digital camera. Again, strange how this only happens when those memory modules are starved of oxygen near imminent death, and not when my consciousness diminishes in other ways such as after a dose of [physical molecules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevoflurane). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836.md?page=3)