First off, hi

Secondly, I'm not close-minded enough to think that I'm definitely right with this, and the fact that it's not a popularly believed argument among rational people leads me to believe there is obviously a reason for that being the case. Nevertheless, I shall present an argument that I thought of a while ago and can't seem to think of any counter to it.

P = premise
C = conclusion

P1) If time was not infinite, there could be no point in "time" for which time could start.
C1) Therefore time is infinite.
P2) If time is infinite, everything that can possibly come to pass will come to pass an infinite amount of times.
C2) Therefore the function of our matter (our consciousness) will come to pass an infinite amount of times.
C3) Therefore our personal consciousness' will be "reincarnated".

The main problem I can see with my argument is that someone may disagree with time being infinite, but I don't see how it can be finite due to P1, and also the thought of "no time" just doesn't feel right to me.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm)automaton Wrote: First off, hi

Secondly, I'm not close-minded enough to think that I'm definitely right with this, and the fact that it's not a popularly believed argument among rational people leads me to believe there is obviously a reason for that being the case. Nevertheless, I shall present an argument that I thought of a while ago and can't seem to think of any counter to it.

P = premise
C = conclusion

P1) If time was not infinite, there could be no point in "time" for which time could start.
C1) Therefore time is infinite.
P2) If time is infinite, everything that can possibly come to pass will come to pass an infinite amount of times.
C2) Therefore the function of our matter (our consciousness) will come to pass an infinite amount of times.
C3) Therefore our personal consciousness' will be "reincarnated".

The main problem I can see with my argument is that someone may disagree with time being infinite, but I don't see how it can be finite due to P1, and also the thought of "no time" just doesn't feel right to me.

Your premise 2 is incorrect. For "everything that can possibly come to pass" to come to pass more than once, it must itself be finite. If time is infinite and "everything that can possibly come to pass" is also infinite, then there is no need to repetition.

To simplify, you are assuming that while time itself is infinite, the total number of events that can take place are finite and therefore, at some point, they must be repeated. Well, first of all, there is no basis for assuming that the number of events is finite. And secondly, even if the number of events were finite, it's still not necessary that all of them must be repeated. Perhaps some of them are repeated infinitely while others occur just once. Therefore, your conclusions C2 and C3 are wrong and there is no reason to assume reincarnation.

C1 does not logically follow from P1. As written, C1 is a bare assertion. It seems you may be thinking that the second clause of P1 is self-evident - if that's the case, then you're basically affirming the consequent.

The first part of your argument is invalid. As the latter part is dependent on the first, I haven't bothered with it.

In addition P1 is so awkwardly worded that I would scrap it and start over.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm)automaton Wrote: and also the thought of "no time" just doesn't feel right to me.

There was no 'before' the big bang. Time did not exist.

Reminds me of that 1 million virtual mokeys randomly recreating the works of Shakespeare (given the right amount of time).
I agree an infinate amount of time creates an infinate amount of possibilitys , but re-incarnate our own conciousness?
Even if a infinate amount of time eventually created a (virtually) identical galaxy , identical Earth and then sunsequently creating humans and one of those humans turned out just like you (DNA , life experiences , the lot) , it wouldn't be you. It would be something that turned out identical by chance. So no , i don't think your conciousness can be re-incarnated , this way , or any other.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

(September 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm)automaton Wrote: and also the thought of "no time" just doesn't feel right to me.

There was no 'before' the big bang. Time did not exist.

Maybe correct , but only for our univererse and we are not necessarily limited to that.

I doubt a lot of modern physics would be around if we rejected theories because they didn't "feel right". I mean come on, waves that can also be particles? Diffracting electrons? The Uncertainty principle? Relativity? Tunelling? To quote a Theoretical Physics Professor I met; "It's just screwy!".

(September 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm)Tobie Wrote: I doubt a lot of modern physics would be around if we rejected theories because they didn't "feel right". I mean come on, waves that can also be particles? Diffracting electrons? The Uncertainty principle? Relativity? Tunelling? To quote a Theoretical Physics Professor I met; "It's just screwy!".

I'm fond of saying "If you think you understand physics, and it all makes perfect sense - you probably don't."

Your syllogism is bad and you should feel bad.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm)Haydn Wrote: Maybe correct , but only for our univererse and we are not necessarily limited to that.

Maybe, maybe not. That is what so great about the unknown, the cosmos. Even things you hold almost certain, question it. Perhaps you're right, or perhaps you're wrong.
Let's do some science and find out.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm)automaton Wrote: P1) If time was not infinite, there could be no point in "time" for which time could start.

Define "Time". Define what is meant by "Time Starting". Define what is meant by there "Being time"

Why could there be no point in "time" for which time could start? For that matter why could there be no point in "time" for which time could end?

(September 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm)automaton Wrote: P2) If time is infinite, everything that can possibly come to pass will come to pass an infinite amount of times.

Even if time is infinite (by some definition), the laws of Thermal dynamics as we understand them are not thereby undone. Entropy in the universe will still never again return to the level they had assumed at any point in time we can describe. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect everything that could happen could as easily, or could at all, happen again. Indeed one hypothesis for the eventual fate of the universe is attainment of the state in which nothing at all, whether it has happened before or not, could ever happen again. In this case time can never again be marked by succession of events, so time may not end, but its progress will never again be measurable. It's called the heat death of the Universe.