# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/41 "2005-10-07T15:39:50Z")
**SentientMeat** While your post was good, and I did read it. My lack of math skills and a seemingly fundamental difference in the definition of consciousness, I don’t know if that at this time we could even come to a common understanding of that which is being discussed. For instance, I do not believe that ‘consciousness’ is diminished when taking nitrous oxide. I’ve taken nitrous oxide and been perfectly lucid of the fact that I was experiencing things differently, and I marvelled at how suddenly quiet sounds were quite loud, like the refridgerator, but the people talking to me seemed very far off and distant. We refer to sleep as lack of “consciousness” but that’s hardly the case. We delve into the subconscious which is just another level of consciousness, one we have deemed as “lower”, but just as the first floor of a building isn’t lesser in quality of the 33rd floor, neither one is either more or less conscious than the other, only conscious of different things. I personally do not believe that consciousness is limited to the brain, I think that all interactions that I spawn in the world is my “consciousness”, and that my will still interacts within other people’s brains even if I were to suddenly die. In otherwords I become a spirit, or a viral meme, but this does not mean that I lack “consciousness”. I was comparing the size of the Planck unit to that of the entire known universe. If the known universe is expanding then the Planck unit is shrinking by comparison. I didn’t claim we discovered new galaxies, only that we discovered new properties of empty space, making empty space loom larger in the perspective than it did previously, thus the idea that it is “expanding”. Also, when I say there is no size to the universe, what I mean is that size is a property of measure, and requires a comparison to something else to be in any way meaningful. So the size of the entire universe is infinitely small and infinitely large all at once. In order for it to expand it would need to have a definable size. Since the word “define” means to set a limit. It is my feeling that to set such a limit would merely be fooling ourselves in an attempt to make it easier to understand the universe, thus obliterating any ability to do so. So as I was saying, just because the galaxies seem farther away, are they really? When you get into physical properties of celestial entities of that size there are a lot of factors that can go into color shifts and other such manners of measure by which we are attempting to quantify the intervening distance. I remain skeptical that we have discovered a way to accurately measure the distance between galaxies. The empty space is absolutely filled with the energies that interplay between celestial entities. Maybe the galaxy is not moving away, and that some other sort of confluence of energy, or entity that we cannot currently detect is growing and pushing those galaxies out of the way, but this does not imply that the universe itself is growing. The universe itself is constant, it simply is, and I think it’s a mistake to apply such definitions to the universe. If you want to say that the intervening space between us and the Andromeda Galaxy increases over time, I am willing to buy it, but I don’t think such a limited measure should be applied to the overall universe, which from all evidence I have ever seen or experienced, it is already infinite. So my argument is that our awareness of the universe is changing, and that while it’s fundamental nature will remain as it always was and ever will be, how we perceive and measure it’s constituent parts will remain in constant flux. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Side\_Pocket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e99b99/32.png) [@Side\_Pocket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Side_Pocket)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/42 "2005-10-07T19:53:37Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The thing is, you’re confusing copenhagen many-worlds theory with a few other multiple-universe theories, and adding mysticism to both. A minor nitpick. The Copenhagen theory would never consort with the Everett Many Worlds Hypothesis. The Bohrs et al theory, developed in the '20s and 30’s, states that when a particle is faced with a choice it makes that choice based on probability and the wave function collapses. The Many Worlds Hypothesis, developed by Hugh Everett lll in the 50’s, states that there is no collapse. All possibilities become real. Someone should write a book and name it the Schizophrenic Universe. Catchy title, I think. Please continue your discussion. This is a terrific thread. ---
**Author:** ![enitocinnlonahte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3bc359/32.png) [@enitocinnlonahte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enitocinnlonahte)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/43 "2005-10-07T20:32:26Z")
In an infinite universe wouldn’t there be an infinite number of simulated almost-universes? ---
**Author:** ![Side\_Pocket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e99b99/32.png) [@Side\_Pocket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Side_Pocket)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/44 "2005-10-07T20:56:17Z")
> [@enitocinnlonahte](#): > > In an infinite universe wouldn’t there be an infinite number of simulated almost-universes? Maybe. And maybe ours is such a universe. How could we tell? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/45 "2005-10-08T04:23:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > 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 are reading too much into what I wrote. There is no mysticism whatsoever. I am just looking at any of the infinite universes theories and asking if what has already occurred is certain to occur again. I don’t think that most physists would have any problem discussing whether say the element iron is likely to occur again with other universes. I am just saying that if a given person’s conscienceness is nothing but a physical property then infinite universes could recreate it as well as they could any other physical property (albeit with a lower probability than most things). The lower probability shouldn’t matter with infinite universes. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/46 "2005-10-08T09:07:53Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > For instance, I do not believe that ‘consciousness’ is diminished when taking nitrous oxide. I didn’t specify nitrous oxide, I specified sevoflurane (_general_ anaesthetic). If your consciousness is not diminished under _that_, how come you look so much like a dead body? > [@](#): > > If the known universe is expanding then the Planck unit is shrinking by comparison. No, the expansion of the universe is on a cosmological scale _between_ galaxies: gravity counteracts that expansion _within_ galaxies, so the Planck length remains constant. > [@](#): > > I didn’t claim we discovered new galaxies, only that we discovered new properties of empty space, making empty space loom larger in the perspective than it did previously, thus the idea that it is “expanding”. Again, it is not a property of empty space that we have discovered, it is the redshift and CMB which shows the universe to be expanding. > [@](#): > > In order for it to expand it would need to have a definable size. Since the word “define” means to set a limit. It is my feeling that to set such a limit would merely be fooling ourselves in an attempt to make it easier to understand the universe, thus obliterating any ability to do so. The North Pole of the universe **is** 14 billion years away: the redshift and CMB demonstrate so. > [@](#): > > When you get into physical properties of celestial entities of that size there are a lot of factors that can go into color shifts and other such manners of measure by which we are attempting to quantify the intervening distance. Well, suggest them, and I’ll go through the reasons why they have been disproven. This is what happened to Fred Hoyle’s Steady-State attempts to explain the redshift, and even he couldn’t clutch at _any_ straws for the CMB. > [@](#): > > I remain skeptical that we have discovered a way to accurately measure the distance between galaxies. The speed of light in vacuo is constant. Agreed? Disagree, with supporting evidence, and I assure you’ll get a Nobel prize. > [@](#): > > If you want to say that the intervening space between us and the Andromeda Galaxy increases over time, I am willing to buy it, but I don’t think such a limited measure should be applied to the overall universe, which from all evidence I have ever seen or experienced, it is already infinite. _All_ galaxies are getting further from us _and each other_. Call that what you like. And 14 billion light-years (plus lots more from inflation, perhaps) is still not _infinite_. > [@](#): > > So my argument is that our awareness of the universe is changing, and that while it’s fundamental nature will remain as it always was and ever will be, how we perceive and measure it’s constituent parts will remain in constant flux. _ie._ sometimes we get things wrong, like you and Fred Hoyle. But once those flawed suggestions are _falsified_, what remains in the crucible is an incredibly strong working conclusion. The expansion of the universe is as true as the roundness of the world. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/47 "2005-10-08T17:53:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > People who really hold this theory take it to extremes, saying that any physically possible universe _must_ come into being. > > So there is a universe “out there” exactly like our own, except in which Shakespeare’s sonnets suddenly appear painted on Chinese mountain in the year 1254. > > Seriously. I argued with a guy who wrote an article for Scientific American (or, rather, I pointed out in an e-mail a similar example to the above and he confirmed that, yes, the theory does require such absurdities to happen _somewhere_). > > So if we grant that thoughts are “physical” ( **SentientMeat** , yoo hoo!), and and that any given thought is “physically possible,” then there must be a universe “out there” in which you reappear after you die in the full bloom of youth (the Afterlife?), remembering exactly what you remembered here on the “real” Earth, and continuing your existence. > > I’m not kidding. Such an absurdity is implied by the hypothesis (it’s hardly a “theory” at this point). > > To say, “Well, they’re not the same atoms,” is a dodge, because the same definition of “sameness” does not apply to atoms and information. This is true even on the most concrete, physical level, as you are the same personality (information) that you were 10 years ago (by some definition of sameness or other), yet you are composed of almost totally different atoms. > > If, in the “universe of reincarnation” you perceived yourself as being the same you, then you would “be” the same you (same information). > > I am offering the above as a rebuttal to the notion of infinite physical universes _for the atheist-materialist_. I don’t think they’re going to like the implications. I have my own, math/logic-based reasons for disbelieving in infinite universes. If anyone is interested, I’ll go into it, though I’ve been meaning to start my own thread on the topic. I consider myself a strong “atheist-materialist,” but I don’t see why this is any sort of rebuttal. Clearly there is an infinitesimal but nonzero chance of almost any truly absurd event occurring. Why should it matter whether or not these events in some sense actually occur in some infinitesimal but nonzero subset of real universes? In your opinion, is the case: lim (p -\> 0) [Some event happens with probability p] metaphorically or morally different in some nontrivial way from: [Some event happens with probability 0]? If so, then your internal mapping from actual situations to metaphysical/moral evaluations contains discontinuities, which I consider a rather odd state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/48 "2005-10-08T20:08:23Z")
**SentientMeat** That’s interesting, I’ll need to look more into this. I am still skeptical, because oftentimes I feel like such definitive statements of the limits of the universe are an imposition of artificial limits. However, I don’t know enough about the subject really to say either way, but I’ll be interested in learning about it. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Side\_Pocket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e99b99/32.png) [@Side\_Pocket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Side_Pocket)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/49 "2005-10-08T21:01:02Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > _All_ galaxies are getting further from us _and each other_. Generally speaking, that’s true. However , the Adromeda Galaxy will collide with our galaxy in a few million years because they are gravitationally bound. ---
**Author:** ![1Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/97f17d/32.png) [@1Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1Ninja)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836/50 "2005-10-10T21:22:09Z")
I see this also being possible through technology. First we need to somehow track where every bit of energy and matter has been at any given time (through some type of gravity or lightdetectors or something) throughout history. It would probably be like a big puzzle. But if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, all we’d need to do is take a snapshot of all matter and energy in the universe mapped by location, speed, trajectory, time, etc etc…then we just need to work backwards in realtime with lots of patience and a hell of a supercomputer until we reach the beginning. This would give an exact play by play in real time of any animal, person, plant, etc life as it saw it. I just realized all this would do is create a clone with your memories. I’m not sure what this would mean for our consciousness or what it really is. Very confused right now. lol [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-theories-of-infinite-universes-imply-a-type-of-reincarnation/324836.md?page=2)