I'm convinced that when I die I'm just going to come back here.

[Wayfaerer]

@worried_to_death Good post, I can see you've put a lot of effort into it. When I said it makes no sense, I was just applying Occam's razor. Sure, unintuitive concepts can still be true, but why assume that as the first choice? Are we supposed to just be agnostic about everything? if so, even ER as a possibility is horrifying enough. If I could just somehow have confirmation of it being either true or false, it would totally change my course of action right now. I don't really want an eternity of going through my life as I had just assuming as if it would all end one day (causing me to be careless/reckless) and essentially being forced to ending my life by downing poisonous salt in some dingy hotel room all before the age of 30. Too much meaningless pain, too much pointless suffering in my life and even if my mind were wiped clean each time, it would still be a lot of misery in the moment. Stretch that to a global and historical scale and wow, that is a lot of perpetual torment!

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Are we supposed to just be agnostic about everything

If we were perfectly rational beings, we would be agnostic I think, since we can never know anything with 100% certainty. But we're also ruled by emotions, fears, primordial drives, our past etc. So I guess we cannot help believing some things over others, some theories over other theories, some ideas over other ideas etc., sometimes beyond what the evidence might suggest or imply. Some reasons we believe one thing rather than another relate to logic and evidence, but many reasons also relate to those irrational emotions and fears and illogical wishes.

" If I could just somehow have confirmation of it being either true or false, it would totally change my course of action right now "

Do you think such confirmation can even exist? And what might it look like? A purely logical/mathematical demonstration or a new universal theory of everything in physics?
Wouldn't you be able to just doubt the confirmation one way or the other?

I mean, we can doubt even the most apparently obvious things like the existence of other minds or the existence of the external world.
So I'm sure, given how rigorous your epistemological standards are, you would find some way to doubt or question the (dis)confirmation lol

" I was getting physically fit and close to finishing my STEM degree (which I loved) before my catastrophe "
You may have already said before, so I'm sorry if I'm making you say it again, but can I ask what happened?

 

[esse_est_percipi]

[Pure Nothingness] > BIG BANG! > stuff happens > Heath Death > [Pure Nothingness]
The universe is expanding and the acceleration of that expansion is accelerating. What is the universe expanding into?


I personally agree with the heat death of the universe due to the law of entropy and the extreme accelerating expansion of the universe

Thanks, I will watch.
So do you think the universe continues to expand even at heat death?

 

[RedDEE]

Thanks, I will watch.
So do you think the universe continues to expand even at heat death?

At heat death, the universe does not expand anymore. It's death, buddy. The death of the universe. If things continued to happen after the heat death of the universe, well now that wouldn't be death would it?

 

[esse_est_percipi]

At heat death, the universe does not expand anymore. It's death, buddy. The death of the universe. If things continued to happen after the heat death of the universe, well now that wouldn't be death would it?

So what happens at the quantum level when the universe has reached heat death?
And how long is heat death theoretically supposed to last? Infinitely? Does time even meaningfully apply to the universe when heat death is reached?

(Take this tongue-in-cheek) but it bothers me every time I read the title of this thread. This could be the worst secret of the universe. This would feel worse than a failed attempt.

It's a conspiracy

 

[RedDEE]

So what happens at the quantum level when the universe has reached heat death?
And how long is heat death theoretically supposed to last? Infinitely? Does time even meaningfully apply to the universe when heat death is reached?

After the heat death of the universe, there is no longer time. For things to function at a quantum level, there's needs to be time. Quantum mechanics dies with the heat death of the universe. Physics no longer apply after the heat death of the universe. Everything gets a well deserved eternal rest.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

After the heat death of the universe, there is no longer time. For things to function at a quantum level, there's needs to be time. Quantum mechanics dies with the heat death of the universe. Physics no longer apply after the heat death of the universe. Everything gets a well deserved eternal rest.

What about the no-hiding theorem which states that information can never be lost at the quantum level?
If there are local decreases in entropy in heat death, given enough time (infinity) isn't there a high probability the information of this universe could rearrange itself exactly the same, i.e. recurrence of the same?

p.s. I'm not trying to be annoying or smart, I don't know much about physics and I don't really believe in eternal recurrence, but how do you answer my above point?

 

[RedDEE]

What about the no-hiding theorem which states that information can never be lost at the quantum level?
If there are local decreases in entropy in heat death, given enough time (infinity) isn't there a high probability the information of this universe could rearrange itself exactly the same, i.e. recurrence of the same?

p.s. I'm not trying to be annoying or smart, I don't know much about physics and I don't really believe in eternal recurrence, but how do you answer my above point?

This is hard for me to answer, but let me try.

At the end of the universe, all the information will equal no information. There technically will be information after the heat death of the universe - but that information will be equal to 0. All the information will be null. It'll be like when you wipe a hard drive on a computer - all the bits get assigned to a value of "0". If all the bits on a computer's hard drive are "0", can you say that the hard drive has information? Well yes and no. There is information, but the information is that there is no information.

There are no local decreases in entropy in heat death. There can be local decreases of entropy in a system shortly prior to heat death. All kinds of weird funky shit happens prior to heat death. But once heat death happens - that's it. It's all 0's.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

some recurrences will be identical up to the point of your conception, and you are the 'free radical' in the universe. From your perspective in such a universe you might be the only thing with free will in the universe.

I still want to push you a bit on this.
How does free will fit into a universe completely governed by chemical, physical and quantum laws, the same laws that supposedly give you the eternal recurrence you believe in?
Is it somehow an emergent property like consciousness (if consciousness is an emergent property), or is it more tied to the fundamental nature of reality?

 

[ExitStageLeft]

I still want to push you a bit on this.
How does free will fit into a universe completely governed by chemical, physical and quantum laws, the same laws that supposedly give you the eternal recurrence you believe in?
Is it somehow an emergent property like consciousness (if consciousness is an emergent property), or is it more tied to the fundamental nature of reality?

Let's assume that the universe genuinely does recur infinitely, in the way I've described. If it's endless, it follows that you would experience every possible choice you could ever possibly make - not an eternal return of the same, but a kind of eternal return of the different. What does that do for free will?

 

[esse_est_percipi]

But once heat death happens - that's it. It's all 0's.

This is the point I'm still not sure about but I don't know enough about quantum mechanics and astrophysics to judge one way or the other.
But I have read that quantum fluctuations do not require any energy input, they just sort of happen spontaneously, so theoretically I don't see why they would be ruled out after heat death.

 

[RedDEE]

This is the point I'm still not sure about but I don't know enough about quantum mechanics and astrophysics to judge one way or the other.
But I have read that quantum fluctuations do not require any energy input, they just sort of happen spontaneously, so theoretically I don't see why they would be ruled out after heat death.

I just went to the Wikipedia page on Quantum Fluctuations, and this is the first sentence,

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space.

This is the first sentence on Wikipedia for Heat Death of the Universe,

The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze, is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.

So here's the logic I'm proposing. Since Quantum Fluctuations only occur within energy in a point in space, and at the heat death of the universe there will be "no thermodynamic free energy" then there will be no free energy for Quantum Fluctuations to occur in.

I don't know what you read, but Quantum Fluctuations do indeed require energy.

All of this seems really obvious to me.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

But in that same wikipedia article, further down, it also says:

"Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles violate conservation of energy, however this is allowed because they annihilate each other within the time limit set by the uncertainty principle and so are not observable "

Anyway, I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative or anything and I don't disagree with your logic.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Let's assume that the universe genuinely does recur infinitely, in the way I've described. If it's endless, it follows that you would experience every possible choice you could ever possibly make - not an eternal return of the same, but a kind of eternal return of the different. What does that do for free will?

The question is, is why must there be different iterations? The universe up until your birth is the exact same, then following determinism, the effects must also be the exact same.

 

[RedDEE]

Let's assume that the universe genuinely does recur infinitely, in the way I've described. If it's endless, it follows that you would experience every possible choice you could ever possibly make - not an eternal return of the same, but a kind of eternal return of the different. What does that do for free will?

I get what you're saying. You're saying that you make certain choices in your life, and after you die, you come back and make different choices. And you keep dieing an coming back, for an infinite amount of time, until you make every possible choice.

This idea contains a fallacy. Because every possible choice you make is infinite. You can make an infinite number of different possible choices. How can every possible choice be made by 'coming back' if it requires an infinte amount of time to achieve it? If you keep dieing and coming back, and making choices, every possible choice cannot be made. Because you'll be doing it forever, so the task will never be completed.

Here's what I propose. In this ONE LIFE you are making every possible choice, simultaneously. Every choice you have ever made, was every possible choice you could have ever made, all at the same time. You might say, 'well? I could have done this different, or that different'. I say, you could have never done anything differently. If you didn't make a choice, then you could not have possibly made that choice. I also say that every choice you make in the future, will be every possible choice all at the same time.

Also, I postulate this. You are every living being all at the same time. You are every being, living on every plane of existence, in every dimension, living every possible path on the multiverse, making every possible choice you could ever possibly make, all at the same time. In your one body, and your one life, you are living it ALL. Amen.

But in that same wikipedia article, further down, it also says:

"Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles violate conservation of energy, however this is allowed because they annihilate each other within the time limit set by the uncertainty principle and so are not observable "

Anyway, I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative or anything and I don't disagree with your logic.

I'm not arguing. I love talking about physics. I was crying my eyes out an hour ago, and now typing out responses to you guys is distracting me and making me happy. =)

Here is my response to you.

Quantum Fluctuations arise randomly with no source of energy required. Well, if Quantum Fluctuations did arise after the heat death of the universe - they couldn't effect any energy, because all the energy has ran out! There is no more thermodynamic free energy, so what will Quantum Fluctuations effect? Nothing at all.

Is it possible that after the heat death of the universe, there will be a state of maximum entropy, with the only thing happening is random Quantum Fluctuations? Well, even if that were true, the Quantum Fluctuations aren't going to do anything, because there is no energy to influence or disturb. Therefore, there will be no chance of any kind of entropy decrease, or anything happening at all physically.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I was crying my eyes out an hour ago, and now typing out responses to you guys is distracting me and making me happy. =)

 

[RedDEE]

I do want to say, I wholeheartedly believe that Quantum Fluctuations stop at the heat death of the universe.

The way I arrive at this conclusion is outside the realm of science, and it's even outside the realm of psuedo-science.

The logic I use is within the realm of religion. Here it is. Everything dies. I see it every day. Humans die. Plants die. Even suns die - our sun will die. Our sun, which has been worshiped as GOD or a god, will die. Black holes collapse. Atoms decay.

My logic is simple. Everything dies, even our universe. Quantum Fluctuations would not be an exception. Why would my cat die, and Quantum Fluctuations won't? All things come to an end. That's Wisdom.

 

[ExitStageLeft]

As I understand it, quantum fluctuations are not really effected by anything that occurs on a macro scale.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

You can make an infinite number of different possible choices. How can every possible choice be made by 'coming back' if it requires an infinte amount of time to achieve it? If you keep dieing and coming back, and making choices, every possible choice cannot be made. Because you'll be doing it forever, so the task will never be completed.

Yes.
This is it.
This also segues into a refutation of eternal recurrence by reductio ad absurdum. (possibly).

(1)Assume eternal recurrence is true according to some quantum fluctuation model of heat death coupled with time infinity.
(2)Then we would already have necessarily lived this same life infinite times in the 'past' (or in identical parallel universes).
(3)If not then there would have had to have been a 'first beginning' or 'first iteration' of our universe (e.g. 3, 7, 850 universes ago, or 20,000,000,000,987,564 universes ago, etc).
(4)But a first iteration would be arbitrary and beg the question why the iterations didn't stretch back one stage further, or to infinity. It would contradict (1).

(5)If this is all true, we could never have gotten to this point in time in this universe living this life, because we would have had to have already lived an infinite amount of times to get here, which is impossible.

[i.e. this life in this universe would be (infinity + 1).
But (infinity + 1) is still infinity.
And infinity cannot be 'traversed'.
So we couldn't have already lived an infinite amount of identical lives].

(6)Then eternal recurrence cannot be true.
(7)Because if the universe does recur exactly alike in the 'future', then it would have had to have already happened infinite times in the 'past'.
(8)But this contradicts the above reasoning, specifically (5).

Conclusion: Assuming eternal recurrence to be true leads to a contradiction, so this life and this universe are unique and will never happen again.
Q.E.D. (?)

[The only potential point of difficulty I can see is in premise (5).
Because in math an infinite series can be added to get a finite result using a the notion of a set and limit.
An infinite amount of terms can have a finite sum.
This is how Zeno's paradoxes of infinity are resolved.
But I don't know how this could apply to the notion of infinite universes, since the very idea of time, let alone consciousness, existence and logic itself, in this context become very unclear and problematic. A lot depends on whether it is possible or not for existence itself (time, quantum, strings, consciousness, multiverse, whatever) to be an infinite phenomenon yet allow the possibility for the infinite to be summed in a set and 'overcome' to reach a 'present' (whatever that could mean in this context)].

 

[profoundexperience]

I am very late to this party & have only had a chance to quickly skim what's been written (so deep apologies if I'm repeating)...

It seems like some of the thinking is about how bad it is if I/you/we recurs in the future. And, if that's the case, what makes one think "this time" is the "first rodeo"? Isn't it possible there's already an infinite number of "us echoing" back into the past as well? And, if so, do those "past echos" hurt/affect us now?

there would have had to have been a 'first beginning' or 'first iteration' of our universe

I'm not so sure... There may be what appears to us to be a paradox, but nature is under no obligation to "make sense" to us. It seems to me to be possibly more sensical/smooth "mathematically" that it goes back forever and forever than having a "first beginning".

Anyway, the future "you" isn't "you" any more than the past "yous" were... it's just an identical copy, a Xerox (and probably every variation thereof). It isn't "you", personally reliving it. It's a "new you copy" who feels like they're doing it for the first time.

It does seem monstrously evil... but what can we do about it from here? We are but an emergent property/object that has no choice but to emerge (given the right conditions). I think the only answer is to shut it the fork down as soon as we can -- each instance/time -- by ctb, if necessary: Because, due to "the set of all times of the set of all possible realities"... and both of those sets probably being infinite... us killing ourselves makes absolutely no difference: We lack the power to save the other instances = The only power we have in our scope is to "save ourselves"...?

Beyond that, I think there's possibly a "higher view", an "openness" where the boundaries we distinguish (from our viewpoint = between instances, or realities, etc.) do not exist at all: Think of an infinite "diamond lattice" going in every direction... then add more axes (axis-es), add an infinite number of them... then imagine the whole thing "blurring together", where there are no boundaries between things. This sounds like pure "woo", I know. And it's non-falsifiable: I'm talking about the set of all possibilities without any limits whatsoever. Of course, this -- exactly what we experience right now -- is included in that set. And, we cannot prove that that's not what "this" "is".

Perhaps consciousness can only distinguish things "digitally" (that seems to be the case: e.g., either neurons fire or they do not)... whereas reality is actually, in whole, "analog".

Not sure if I'm making sense, but if I am... please, where is my thinking flawed?

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I'm not so sure... There may be what appears to us to be a paradox, but nature is under no obligation to "make sense" to us. It seems to me to be possibly more sensical/smooth "mathematically" that it goes back forever and forever than having a "first beginning".

You quoted my premise (3) out of context.
What I said was that if you assume that the past isn't infinite (no infinite universes going back into the 'past', although temporal language might not make sense here), then there would have to have been a first iteration of this universe (this is all assuming the eternal recurrence scenario, as per premise (1)).

Anyway, the future "you" isn't "you" any more than the past "yous" were... it's just an identical copy, a Xerox (and every variation thereof). It isn't "you", personally reliving it. It's a "new you copy" who feels like they're doing it for the first time.

Yes, I understand this. Just like if we imagine an identical parallel universe with an identical version of 'us', it still wouldn't be 'us' in this universe. It would be a clone, but in an alternate or separate spacetime manifold.

there's possibly a "higher view", an "openness" where the boundaries we distinguish (from our viewpoint = between instances, or realities, etc.) do not exist at all.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here? You mean a higher plane of existence/consciousness where we become aware of everything at the same time or something?

 

[RedDEE]

I am very late to this party & have only had a chance to quickly skim what's been written (so deep apologies if I'm repeating)...

It seems like some of the thinking is about how bad it is if I/you/we recurs in the future. And, if that's the case, what makes one think "this time" is the "first rodeo"? Isn't it possible there's already an infinite number of "us echoing" back into the past as well? And, if so, do those "past echos" hurt/affect us now?

I'm not so sure... There may be what appears to us to be a paradox, but nature is under no obligation to "make sense" to us. It seems to me to be possibly more sensical/smooth "mathematically" that it goes back forever and forever than having a "first beginning".

Anyway, the future "you" isn't "you" any more than the past "yous" were... it's just an identical copy, a Xerox (and every variation thereof). It isn't "you", personally reliving it. It's a "new you copy" who feels like they're doing it for the first time.

It does seem monstrously evil... but what can we do about it from here? We are but an emergent property/object that has no choice but to emerge (given the right conditions). I think the only answer is to shut it the fork down as soon as we can -- each instance/time -- by ctb, if necessary: Because, due to "the set of all times of the set of all possible realities"... us killing ourselves makes absolutely no difference: We lack the power to save the other instances = The only power we have in our scope is to "save ourselves"...?

Beyond that, I think there's possibly a "higher view", an "openness" where the boundaries we distinguish (from our viewpoint = between instances, or realities, etc.) do not exist at all.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but if I am... please, where is my thinking flawed?

I think you're spot on. The way I see it, everything exists already. Every path we are going down, it exists before we get there. There's this "feeling" like everything is being created as we go along. Like as if everything is being "generated" on the fly, in real time as we go along. But really, the future already exists.

So it seems as though there is a "force" that determines which "path" we go down. We are not in control. Every decision we think we make, we didn't make that decision (it is pre-determined). It's that "force" I'm talking about. Our path is pre-determined, and some sort of force determined it. This force determines which path our individual consciousness traverses within the multiverse.

I don't know about you, but this "force" doesn't seem benevolent. This force could have pushed me down a path in the multiverse that gave me a good life. But this force, that determines my fate, is pushing me down a branch of the multiverse that is way less than ideal. I don't know if this force is sentient. But it is certainly malevolent by nature.

 

[profoundexperience]

You quoted my premise (3) out of context.

BIG apologies! I have a lot of catching up to do & this all requires a lot of thought.

You mean a higher plane of existence/consciousness where we become aware of everything at the same time or something?

I'm proposing the nature of reality is possibly completely continuous (aka "analog") whereas our consciousness is only capable of perceiving (and also verbally expressing what we perceive) in "digital" ways.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

There's this "feeling" like everything is being created as we go along. Like as if everything is being "generated" on the fly, in real time as we go along. But really, the future already exists.

It certainly 'feels' like we have free will and that we are generating the path from the present to the future spontaneously and according to some property of our conscious brains. I'm not sure that 'the future already exists' from out particular viewpoint/frame of reference. Because of the nature of light and how it interacts with the geometry of spacetime, there is a sense in which we can say that the past still exists (i.e. light takes 8min to reach us from the sun, so we are seeing the sun from 8min ago), and certainly the 'present' only makes sense when you specify a frame of reference. So perhaps this also implies that the future is written into the code of the universe too, since past, present and future cannot be separated. But if they all somehow exist 'somewhere' then that also makes them meaningless since the past and the future aren't supposed to exist by definition..
But maybe humans are the only beings capable of creating the future based on some kind of freedom from their frame of reference in the universe. I don't know.

Every decision we think we make, we didn't make that decision (it is pre-determined). It's that "force" I'm talking about.

This would make nonsense of responsibility, ethics, good or evil. It makes humans puppets. I'm not saying it's wrong, but the implications are serious.

"force" doesn't seem benevolent.

If there is such a force guiding life, then yes it does seem malevolent given how things are on the earth. If it's not sentient then it might be something like Schopenhauer described with his notion of will. Just a blind, underlying, spaceless and timeless unconscious energy which strives to push things 'into' existence relentlessly. Maybe at the most fundamental level, this will propels the spontaneous quantum fluctuations which appear to come out of nothing.

BIG apologies! I have a lot of catching up to do & this all requires a lot of thought.

lol it's no problem at all.

I'm proposing the nature of reality is possibly completely continuous (aka "analog") whereas our consciousness is only capable of perceiving (and also verbally expressing what we perceive) in "digital" ways.

The equivalent of the wave (analog) - particle (digital) duality in physics.

 

[Wayfaerer]

...Anyway, the future "you" isn't "you" any more than the past "yous" were... it's just an identical copy, a Xerox (and probably every variation thereof). It isn't "you", personally reliving it. It's a "new you copy" who feels like they're doing it for the first time.

If we are conscious through all of our lives, then why differentiate between "them" and "us?" By knowing this, it's like you are building a bridge between all of your past and future selves.

I also think the thought of us having this conversation an infinite amount of times to be comical, even if other implications are truly horrific.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Yes.
This is it.
This also segues into a refutation of eternal recurrence by reductio ad absurdum. (possibly).

(1)Assume eternal recurrence is true according to some quantum fluctuation model of heat death coupled with time infinity.
(2)Then we would already have necessarily lived this same life infinite times in the 'past' (or in identical parallel universes).
(3)If not then there would have had to have been a 'first beginning' or 'first iteration' of our universe (e.g. 3, 7, 850 universes ago, or 20,000,000,000,987,564 universes ago, etc).
(4)But a first iteration would be arbitrary and beg the question why the iterations didn't stretch back one stage further, or to infinity. It would contradict (1).

(5)If this is all true, we could never have gotten to this point in time in this universe living this life, because we would have had to have already lived an infinite amount of times to get here, which is impossible.

[i.e. this life in this universe would be (infinity + 1).
But (infinity + 1) is still infinity.
And infinity cannot be 'traversed'.
So we couldn't have already lived an infinite amount of identical lives].

(6)Then eternal recurrence cannot be true.
(7)Because if the universe does recur exactly alike in the 'future', then it would have had to have already happened infinite times in the 'past'.
(8)But this contradicts the above reasoning, specifically (5).

Conclusion: Assuming eternal recurrence to be true leads to a contradiction, so this life and this universe are unique and will never happen again.
Q.E.D. (?)

[The only potential point of difficulty I can see is in premise (5).
Because in math an infinite series can be added to get a finite result using a the notion of a set and limit.
An infinite amount of terms can have a finite sum.
This is how Zeno's paradoxes of infinity are resolved.
But I don't know how this could apply to the notion of infinite universes, since the very idea of time, let alone consciousness, existence and logic itself, in this context become very unclear and problematic. A lot depends on whether it is possible or not for existence itself (time, quantum, strings, consciousness, multiverse, whatever) to be an infinite phenomenon yet allow the possibility for the infinite to be summed in a set and 'overcome' to reach a 'present' (whatever that could mean in this context)].

addendum

Premise (5) is correct as far as it is consistent with modern science, if potential infinity is distinguished from actual infinity (going back to Aristotle).
We could not have already lived an actually infinite number of identical lives, because as far as physics is concerned actual infinities cannot be instantiated in reality. Only potential infinities can, i.e. summing a series which tends to infinity as used in calculus.

So you can keep dividing the distance between two points forever, and this division is potentially infinite, but it is not an actual infinity. If distances between two points were actual infinities, then Zeno's paradoxes would hold and we would be living in alice in wonderland world.
The idea of already having lived an infinite amount of lives implies actual infinity, which mathematicians and set theorists can manipulate, but there is no empirical evidence that this can be part of physical reality.

e.g. "The conquest of actual infinity may be considered an expansion of our scientific horizon no less revolutionary than the Copernican system or than the theory of relativity, or even of quantum and nuclear physics." (A. Fraenkel)

"Infinite totalities do not exist in any sense of the word (i.e., either really or ideally). More precisely, any mention, or purported mention, of infinite totalities is, literally, meaningless." (A. Robinson)

"Georg Cantor's grand meta-narrative, Set Theory, created by him almost singlehandedly in the span of about fifteen years, resembles a piece of high art more than a scientific theory." (Y. Manin)

"There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions." (Poincare)

"During the renaissance, particularly with G. Bruno, actual infinity transfers from God to the world. The finite world models of contemporary science clearly show how this power of the idea of actual infinity has ceased with classical (modern) physics. Under this aspect, the inclusion of actual infinity into mathematics, which explicitly started with G. Cantor only towards the end of the last century, seems displeasing. Within the intellectual overall picture of our century ... actual infinity brings about an impression of anachronism." (P. Lorenzen)

So the above deduction purporting to 'prove' the impossibility of eternal recurrence by equating 'eternal' with 'infinite' and precluding the possibility of traversing an actual infinite to reach the present has to be qualified with the clause: as far as modern science knows.

 

[Wayfaerer]

It does. A lot.

It still hasn't been refuted. Point being is that something has to be eternal for us to be here. Something cannot come out of pure nothingness, that is absurd. An eternal universe is the consensus among physists and if given enough time, it's bound to happen again (and again...)

Should this be the case, it's not like every iteration of the universe is going to be the exact same, but it doesn't matter from our perspective how long it takes for the next iteration of ours. After death time has no bearing on us, so it will be like teleporting to your "new" life from the very beginning of when you formed your first memories. Death would be an illusion! If only I was warned that this was even possible a long time ago. I think the very real possibility should warrant public service announcements or something, fuck! That would've totally saved my life earlier on when it would've been more helpful (not that I still wouldn't find it very disturbing.)

 

[esse_est_percipi]

An eternal universe is the consensus among physists

I don't think this is true.
The consensus is big bang model, and they don't know what this implies about what came 'before' (if that even makes sense since time began to.exist with the universe).

An actual mathematical infinity (as opposed to a potential infinity like when you sum an infinite series which tends to infinity, using the notion of limit) is impossible to cross in reality, so the past cannot be infinite. Which means no eternal past. Which means no eternal recurrence

for the next iteration of ours

Even if this is true, it won't be the exact same universe. It will be iteration 3, 4, 7 etc, not the same identical universe. If you can differentiate one iteration from another and form a series, then something is different. Otherwise there couldnt be a series.

And why should 'we' assume that 'we' have to keep reappearing in every step of the series?
This is why I say that a lot of assumptions have to be made to get the eternal recurrence outcome.

be like teleporting to your "new" life from the very beginning of when you formed your first memories

This is where you're importing metaphysics and assumptions based on unknowns. This seems like star trek science based on a fear of repetition.
I totally share your repulsion of eternal recurrence, but in terms of actual evidence, there is more evidence for NDEs and reincarnation (the buddhist kind, based on past life regression and kids having memories of previous lives and having knowledge of things they couldnt possibly know) and UFOs than for eternal recurrence.

 

[TAW122]

Would your thoughts be based on the Hindu, Buddhist religion by any chance? I'm an atheist myself so I don't have a reasonable expectation nor evidence to support the fact that I would come back here once I'm dead. Of course, this isn't claiming that it isn't true, just that I don't have an reasonable expectation nor sufficient evidence to believe otherwise.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Would your thoughts be based on the Hindu, Buddhist religion by any chance?

I think the OP was talking about coming back as the exact same person, based on a repetition of this universe, given an infinite amount of time for the same conditions to occur to cause the same big bang (since apparently information cannot be lost at the quantum level).
Worst scenario imaginable