Sorry, sounds like a load of crap. All of this is just speculation and thought experiments, most of which has no basis in reality or reason to believe it other than "it sounds cool". I don't understand getting anxious over fictitious scenarios. I do find such things interesting to think about, but there's no reason to take any such things as fact and certainty when no one can or has proven anything.
Yes. And here is more speculation which may have no basis in reality, but at least it's more optimistic.
Even with infinite time into the future, it doesn't follow that everything that can happen will happen. A lot depends on 1) whether there can in fact be other universes apart from this one, which 2) can be ordered in a comprehensible sequence of some kind which is 3) not entirely random and chaotic but has some underlying metaphysical pattern to it which 4) allows for the preservation of some features of 'previous' universes (at minimum some energy or particles or structures etc) in such a way that that some kind of development or evolution could be said to be taking place.
One thing that quantum mechanics seems to show is that matter is not made of discrete objects like tiny balls, but rather patterns of vibration which are extended in time (as a vibration takes time to vibrate, even if it can only be measured in nanoseconds) with a past pole and a future pole. At the most basic level, then, events or processes take place, not 'things' or substances. As Whitehead said, in this process, "each form takes its form from the previous one". It follows from this that each e.g. electron, to keep on 'existing', has to 'remember' its 'past pole', in an act of 'prehension' (this is the basis of Whitehead's process philosophy). Perhaps if 1) is true, then 2) could be true also, because the metaphysical pattern required for 3) would be based on a quantum preservation of 'learned' events which allow entire universes to evolve towards something incomprehensible, a process potentially without end (4)). Perhaps each universe phase is slightly better than the last because quantum events have 'learned' to do things a certain way rather than another based on a kind of trial and error of previous universes, and preserve the improvements.
Another thing that will sometimes be used for this kind of repeating universes argument is the Poincare recurrence theorem, to try to show that if you add infinite time to the universe and everything in it, it will repeat all possible states of the universe etc. But the theorem only applies to discrete (i.e. with individual particles), closed mechanical systems within a finite volume, like balls being randomly shaken in a box or a deck of cards being randomly shuffled. The theorem states that given enough time, the initial states of any such system will repeat, and given infinite time, the initial state will repeat infinite times. The problem is that the universe is not 'closed' but 'open' (and it is expanding exponentially), the 'volume' may not be finite but potentially infinite. and it may not be discrete and mechanical at all, but analog and continuous (i.e. not individual substances like atoms interacting mechanically, but vibrational patterns of continuous fields of energy extended in and as time).
Anyway, to get back to the original point and to simplify. Imagine the set of all natural numbers, which is an infinite set. If you start working through that set beginning at 0 and adding 1 each time, you will never reach the end. At one point you will have counted the number e.g. 20. That will have been the first and only time you counted the number 20. Even if you were able to keep counting forever, you will never count the number 20 again. There will be no repetition of '20'.
A cold totally dark universe full of lumps of floating rocks. With no life to experience it, it won't really exist.
Based.
Piaget showed that 'object permanence', the belief that objects continue to exist even when unobserved, only begins to develop within children after a certain age. So before e.g. 12 months old, children react as if objects have stopped existing when they are hidden behind something.
My suspicion is that the pre-object permanence stage of development is more of a correct subject-object alignment with reality than the established object permanence belief after a certain age. The latter is a product of evolutionary forces which has a high survival value or fitness payoff, but wasn't necessarily a truth-preserving development. If you believe that the lion continues to exist even when it is behind the trees and you can't see it, you are more likely to survive than someone who thinks it doesn't. And in some sense it does continue to exist, but only as a subjective set of experiences and desires and as an energy field of potential force (or as a 'permanent possibility of experience' as some phenomenalist philosophers might say), not what we perceive as a 'lion' icon within our user interface.
There is this 'fitness beats truth theorem' in evolutionary game theory which shows that in fact natural selection shapes perception to discern only the aspects of the environment conducive to survival, and that 'normal' perception as a selective discernment of environment has itself evolved to create a simplified user interface with heuristics, simplifying optical devices, and cognitive shortcut models being incorporated into the perceptual scheme. What we perceive as 'reality' is more like a computer desktop which allows easy navigation via icons, graphics, windows etc, which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the electronics, circuits, hardware etc behind the screen.
