1y ago

Will our conscious experience inevitably recur in the universe's infinite timeline?

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?

- !stonerthoughts@lemmyunchained.net

32 comments

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.

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.
- The issue of entropy, as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, indeed presents a significant challenge to the idea of recurring atomic configurations. However, we need to consider the concept of ‘Poincaré recurrence time’.
  We are talking about an extremely long timescale—far exceeding the current age of the universe—upon which certain mathematical models suggest a system could return to a state close to its initial one.
  While at first glance, this seems to defy the increase in entropy, it’s not necessarily the case. The law of increasing entropy applies to closed systems and determines the direction of time, moving from less probable (lower entropy) states to more probable (higher entropy) ones. But given an infinite amount of time, even extremely low-probability events like a return to a lower entropy state could occur, simply because they aren’t strictly impossible.
  On the subject of universal expansion, you’re absolutely correct. Current data suggests that the universe’s expansion isn’t slowing down. However, our understanding of dark energy and the true mechanics of the universe’s expansion remains incomplete. There could be a turning point we’re not yet aware of, or might the nature of the universe oscillate over cycles that dwarf our current understanding of time.
  (I appreciate your detailed response, I love going onto deep dives into this.)

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
- The sharing of consciousness is something i am yet to delve into.

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

I am so surprised to see someone else who has the same kind of "pervasive" thoughts that I do!
For a few years now my brain has been trying to grapple with a very similar intricate web of ideas albeit from a slightly different perspective.
I've always been agnostic but all of these thoughts stem from what I would call a spiritual experience where I didn't see, but FELT, something akin to what you're describing.
Have you heard of Panpsychism? It's a philosophical view that's been around for thousands of years that posits that everything is made up of consciousness. Contrary to the popular belief that consciousness arises from seemingly nowhere, panpsychists think that literally every atom in our universe is a building block of consciousness.
Given this concept, the best way I can describe my spiritual experience is through analogy. Imagine a computer monitor where millions of pixels are changing colors at random. Given an infinite amount of time it's not too far fetched to imagine that eventually these pixels could align in such a way that the monitor will display a perfect image of your face. Given another infinite amount of time its not too far fetched to imagine that face now smiling or frowning.
I believe that our conscious experience is that thread through infinite time which binds these moments together giving an illusion that they are happening one after the other. Since our universe is governed by laws of physics (at least at our scale) only small "realistic" fluctuations in the image are acceptable.
I have a lot more thoughts on the matter but my wife is rushing us out for breakfast! I absolutely love your post - thanks for the lovely thought experiment.

If this thought intrigues you, you really ought to read Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark.
His take is that there is an infinite number of "parallel" identical yous separated only by distance. And that's before he starts getting into the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
I found my own viewpoint leaning toward a neo-pythagorean modal realism sort of perspective before I found this book. I found Our Mathematical Universe by googling for things related to this viewpoint I kindof came to on my own. And I'm very glad I read it.

Not if entropy spreads energy out evenly and things then just stay that way.

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.

In addition to the other great responses here, I'll add that the existence of closed systems has not been established. Cycles can occur in open systems, but there may be no end to the possible forms of cyclicity, not everything cycles.
Also, eternity may be a timeless phenomenon. Take for example the zero value of t at the speed of light. Relative to the reference frame of a photon, time doesn't exist. Time is a subcomponent of spacetime. Can there be cycles where there is no time? Is there something beyond spacetime? It could itself be an emergent property of something timeless.
This topic is beyond the edge of our current scientific insight, but this only makes it more exciting lol
- Probably also beyond the edge of a shower thought haha.

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

32 comments