Cyclic universe

[Anonymous No.11338772]

How likely is it that the universe is just an infinite cycle, and you never truly "die" as the universe goes through an eternal loop of death and rebirth, while "you" make the exact same "choices" in every single iteration, forever?
Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.11338806]

>>11338772
100% on the cyclic part
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

I doubt we are making the same choices however thugh I have heard this out forth before. I am guess from the same source as you. When in doubt I always use go the Vedic sources as they are always the least corrupted. It states we can bounce around between lokas (densities/dimensions) so I am guessing that is likely the case and the evidence/science seems to confirm this is the most likely scenario

[Anonymous No.11338815]

That groundhog day is bullshit. You die you stop existing forever but every day new people are made. Since you are now gone, you will "be" one of these. It's a hard sell with low IQs but logically sound.

[Anonymous No.11338838]

>>11338806
>>11338815
I'm looking for actual credible sources to confirm/infirm this hypothesis, though.

[Anonymous No.11338841]

>>11338772
Isnt Pepe x Wojak basically the digital manifestation of Nietzsches Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy

[Anonymous No.11338848]

>>11338815
>Cyclic universe is bullshit because new people are born every day.
Non-sequitur. What you said makes literally makes no sense, retard. Cyclic universe theory implies the universe will one day collapse, restarting the big bang, which would be an exact reiteration of the one that happened before it, to happen an infinite number of times. "New people" being born relative to your only life means nothing. They won't be "new" in the sense they will always reappear for eternity in the same conditions doomed to live the same lives ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.11338863]

>>11338772
>>11338838

it's called the poincare-caratheodory recurrence, and while it could apply to the universe, it most probably currently doesn't.

humanity could hypothetically make it apply to the universe if

1) we find a way to travel faster than light
2) we find a way to create and delete matter out of nothing
3) we reach a universal consensus that this should happen

the amount of effort required to achieve this is so monumental that I don't think it will ever happen, even if it could. The return on investment is insignificant, and anything you would want to achieve by doing it you could also achieve by other means with the same technology much faster.

[Anonymous No.11338872]

>>11338863
Could you explain why that kind of cycle being possible would require the three points you mentioned? I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11338875]

>>11338863
cont.

to be clear, this is basically on par with the simulated universe idea. at this point in time with our understanding of physics it makes little sense to discuss this outside of sci-fi fantasy. we would first need a grand unified theory, and then probably another substrate theory under that (which we may never achieve)

[Anonymous No.11338908]

>>11338872

1) you need to escape the CMB bubble without disturbing it (this is impossible without FTL, unless you can leave the universe through other ways, which might also be an option, but who knows if that will ever be possible, but if you can do that you can also probably have FTL and time travel anyways)

2.1) you need to send a copy of yourself back into the universe without taking matter from the universe
2.2) you need to construct a complete boundary beyond the CMB that's 100% reflective and has a particular geometry based on knowledge about the big bang we don't yet have

3) you have to ensure that no agent perturbs your experiment at any point during the process

[Anonymous No.11338921]

>>11338908
I thought the reasoning behind the universe being a loop was that, once it collapses completely, then starts to expand again, the big bang takes place in the exact same way, which implies that the chain of reactions that causes events to happen also remains the same as during the previous iteration. Thus leading to everything repeating itself. I didn't think it was a matter of breaking physical laws.

[Anonymous No.11338941]

>>11338921

it's not gonna happen because as far as we know the universe is flat, and much of the matter has already achieved unrecoverable escape velocity a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.11338959]

>>11338941
>the universe is flat
Isn't it toroidal? I thought there was a slight curvature to space.
>much of the matter has already achieved unrecoverable escape velocity
What does that imply? That there is some information that is lost forever even if the initial conditions were replicated?

[Anonymous No.11338984]

>>11338959
>>the universe is flat
>Isn't it toroidal? I thought there was a slight curvature to space.

only locally, but not generally, and it's 4 dimensional and not closed. it's not a pacman world.

>>much of the matter has already achieved unrecoverable escape velocity
>What does that imply? That there is some information that is lost forever even if the initial conditions were replicated?

it means there's no big crunch

you're probably familiar with the concepts, but maybe get a quick refresher on them.

first read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem
and that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

[Anonymous No.11339002]

>>11338984
>you're probably familiar with the concepts
Actually my understanding of physics is pretty abysmal, I thought my questions made that obvious.
So, from your links, due to the expansion of the universe not being slowed down, a big crunch type event is very unlikely to occur, and instead it's expected that the universe will simply continue to expand until the heat death, at which point baryonic matter won't even exist anymore?
Also
>cosmological fine-tuning problem
>the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that small deviations from these values would have extreme effects on the appearance of the universe at the current time.
Is it known what all the "variables" that play a part in these initial conditions are? Aside from those that relate to the flatness problem, I mean.

[Anonymous No.11339282]

>>11338815
>t room temp IQ

[Anonymous No.11339286]

>>11338772
Cyclic universe is unlikely because of entropy. Everything needs to have a beginning and an end ( at least locally, that is).

[Anonymous No.11339315]

>>11339002
>Is it known what all the "variables" that play a part in these initial conditions are?

not yet, maybe never, but probably not in the next 200 years.

[Anonymous No.11339326]

>>11339315
Would it be inaccurate to liken these initial conditions to a function's parameters that define its output?
If we knew exactly what these conditions were, wouldn't it give way to a much better, if not a complete understanding of the way the universe operates and why it behaves like it does?