I continuously grapple with this intricate web of thought that intertwines infinity, atomic structure, and consciousness. It’s predicated on the assumption that if time truly is infinite, then there isn’t just a probability, but an inevitability, that all the matter in the universe will align exactly as they are now.
(I posted this over at c/stonerthoughts, where it will inevitably die without a single interaction, but this is an ongoing pervasive thought I have, and i just wanted to put it out there for more eyes to see.)
This possibility stems from the Poincaré recurrence theorem, a principle in mathematics and physics which suggests that certain systems will, given a sufficiently long but finite time, return to a state almost identical to their initial state. Now, if we consider the universe to be such a system, it implies that given infinite time, every atomic configuration that has ever occurred will inevitably reoccur.
Now, let’s venture deeper. If our consciousness is an emergent property of a specific atomic arrangement, then the recurrence of that atomic arrangement implies the recurrence of that conscious experience. Hence, if we’re bound to this specific arrangement of matter, and time is infinite, are we not then destined to relive this conscious experience an infinite number of times?
The implications are staggering. It suggests a form of cosmic reincarnation, a cyclic existence governed not by spiritual dogma but by the immutable laws of the universe.
My next step is trying to figure out how this concept could integrate with the theory of an afterlife. Also the infinite nature of the individuals conscience, being the observer and therefore the centre of their own universe.
What’s your take on this perspective? How does it change your understanding of consciousness, existence, and our role within this infinite cosmic dance?
One of the current theories in astronomy is that the universe is ever expanding (and the expansion speed is increasing at that). This will eventually lead to a heat death of the universe (i.e., Big Freeze). In such a scenario I cannot imagine how consciousness can arise / propagate.
A contrary theory is that that the universe would reach a point where it would bounce back and reverse this expansion process (i.e., it will contract). In such a scenario the universe would have infinite cycles of expansion and contraction (assuming infinite time) leading to infinite many exact states of the universe (in this infinite time line).
Another theory suggests that there are infinite many parallel universes to ours. This should also imply that at any given moment in time there are infinite many states of parallel universes that are exactly the same as the state of our universe right now.
An interesting aspect of the parallel universe theory and its implications for consciousness is that at any given time we would be “sharing” consciousness with infinite many other beings.
An interesting aspect of the parallel universe theory and its implications for consciousness is that at any given time we would be “sharing” consciousness with infinite many other beings.
This is my mental explanation for déjà vu. Change our mind. Lol
It depends on the mechanisms that govern atomic arrangements, doesn’t it? If we have infinite time, and infinite space, and if it was an (essentially) random process, then sure. On a long enough timescale, the probability of that arrangment approaches 1. But I don’t think those are the circumstances that we’re dealing with.
Not if entropy spreads energy out evenly and things then just stay that way.
entropy would like to have a word with you. to my understanding, if we assume our current universe is an isolated system, sooner or later matter and/or energy is going to be perfectly spread out (aka disordered), preventing any interaction or structures from forming. combine that with the ever increasing expansion of the universe and sometime in the far future, everything basically just comes to a standstill, because nothing will be able to interact with anything. this is called the heat death of the universe. what happens afterwards, if anything, is uncertain, but according to our current knowledge we can’t assume that the nature of our universe is cyclical.
I hope it is haha
No, sorry. While that sounds lovely it breaks two major things.
-
Entropy (second law of thermodynamics)
-
The expansion of the universe doesn’t seem to be slowing. This doesn’t just mean stars and galaxies getting further from each other but the space between subatomic particles are getting further from each other.
Given intimate time the universe will just be a random collection of particles drifting further and further apart.
-
Infinite isn’t synonymous with all-encompassing; the decimal expansion of 1/3 will go on forever (0.3333333…), but it’s never going to contain a 4.
You’re correct that infinity isn’t necessarily all-encompassing. Your example of the decimal expansion of 1/3 represents a “bounded infinity,” where the values can continue indefinitely but are limited in scope - in this case, to repetitions of the number 3.
In contrast, when we consider the potential configurations of the universe over infinite time, we’re imagining something more akin to an “uncountable infinity.” This is a type of infinity exemplified by the set of all real numbers between two points. For example, between 0 and 1, there’s an infinite number of decimal numbers. This infinity is unbounded because there’s no limit to the variation within this set - any decimal between 0 and 1 could potentially appear.
So in the context of the universe, the idea is that given infinite time and assuming no constraints, the possible configurations of matter and energy might resemble an uncountable infinity, with infinite potential arrangements. That means, given enough time, even highly improbable configurations could occur.
The most recent Battlestar Galactica touches on this, particularly in the miniseries finale.
I’ve never watched it. It’s one of those ones that I just haven’t sat down long enough to get into it.
Maybe this is a sign I should try again
Not necessarily, because infinity might not mean what you think it means. Infinity doesn’t mean every possible outcome occurring, because there are different infinites.
For example, you can count an infinity using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… But you can also count an infinity using 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. The latter infinity will only include half the numbers of the former, missing all odd numbers. It’s essentially an infinity 50% smaller than the other infinity - yet both are infinities. Maybe in this example, your consciousness is an odd number?
Another way to look at it is that there’s an infinity in between the numbers 0 and 1 using endless decimal places, and none of those numbers will ever be 2. In this example, maybe your consciousness is the number 7.
My head hurts now! Arghh
I wouldn’t stress too much. I don’t even think science has properly worked out the definition of infinity yet. Probably because there are an infinity of them.
