Reincarnation of the consciousness is inevitable

[Whateverist]

In the absence of evidence, I'm going with the intuitive.

Our understanding comes from what affects time. Mass does. If all the matter/energy was concentrated to smaller than a sub-atomic particle, it'll cancel out the effects of time. Because pretty much, there'd be no time.

I've watched this a couple times before but it was easy to watch again. So much to think about. However I don't see how the compression of all matter to a small dot would change time. The effects of time would be nonexistent because there would be no objects to observe and no observer to observe them anyway. That is still a far cry from saying there would be no time.

Also this doesn't address my question about scale. How do we know that everything in what we call our universe that we can observe but which is visually walled off from whatever else there is or may be .. actually is all that there is? If on a larger scale there are big bang phenomena giving rise to universes like so many bubbles, then there is a before and after even to big bangs. Never mind that we don't have the longevity or perceptual powers to observe them. It could well be that our idea of a uni-verse is just a final vestige of our tendency to see ourselves as central.

Admittedly, I have no evidence for thinking there is anything beyond the extent of what we can observe but it boggles my imagination to imagine an end of space or a beginning of time. Physics tells us amazing things about what we can observe but there is no reason to overstate what we know. There no reason to conflate "what we can observe" with "all that there is" just because we have no evidence to the contrary.

[Ace Otana]

I've watched this a couple times before but it was easy to watch again. So much to think about. However I don't see how the compression of all matter to a small dot would change time. The effects of time would be nonexistent because there would be no objects to observe and no observer to observe them anyway. That is still a far cry from saying there would be no time.

Also this doesn't address my question about scale. How do we know that everything in what we call our universe that we can observe but which is visually walled off from whatever else there is or may be .. actually is all that there is? If on a larger scale there are big bang phenomena giving rise to universes like so many bubbles, then there is a before and after even to big bangs. Never mind that we don't have the longevity or perceptual powers to observe them. It could well be that our idea of a uni-verse is just a final vestige of our tendency to see ourselves as central.

Then to your question I must respond with, I haven't a clue. I don't know. That's the best I can give you. When it comes to trying to explain where the universe came from, I personally think Hawking's/Krauss's theory that the universe simply popped into existence is the correct one, however I maintain that it could be wrong and will adjust my views should it be the case.

Admittedly, I have no evidence for thinking there is anything beyond the extent of what we can observe but it boggles my imagination to imagine an end of space or a beginning of time. Physics tells us amazing things about what we can observe but there is no reason to overstate what we know. There no reason to conflate "what we can observe" with "all that there is" just because we have no evidence to the contrary.

Don't think the theory that the universe popped into existence is taken as a known, it's based on observation and measurements. It has evidence. Which is why it's got my attention. If there is evidence for other universes and the like, then this theory needs to be rechecked.

Hopefully with advancing technologies, we'll have more data. So we can be more sure.

[Norfolk And Chance]

The bigger question for me is why do I experience my consciousness and nobody else's? Why am I me?

Simple. Brain chemistry.

You are a single organism with a single nervous system with a single mind. That's how we work. Stand-alone.

You cannot experience what you are not physically or biologically a part of.

Yes I know that.

You didn't understand what I meant. Why aren't I you, rather than me? Why am I this consciousness in this body.

If I can experience this consciousness in this body, and let's face it it has happened!...what is there to say that I might not experience the consciousness in another body in another time?

[Jackalope]

How am I "affirming the consequent"?

To demonstrate, I'll have to untangle the first part of the argument.

P1) If time was not infinite, there could be no point in "time" for which time could start.
C1) Therefore time is infinite.

I'm taking a stab at what I think your argument is, let me know if this doesn't capture it (I had to remove the "not" from the P1 and add P2 which seemed to be implied by the argument):

P1) If time was infinite, there could be no point in "time" for which time could start.
P2) There is no point in "time" for which time could start.
C1) Therefore time is infinite.

The syllogism is then of the form:

P1) If P then Q
P2) Q
P3) Therefore, P

This is not a valid syllogism (and in fact is a textbook example of affirming the consequent). A valid syllogism would be of the form:

P1) If P then Q
P2) P
P3) Therefore, Q

[liam]

If there is evidence for other universes and the like, then this theory needs to be rechecked.

Hopefully with advancing technologies, we'll have more data. So we can be more sure.

Is there not a fundamental issue with this idea of observing other universes, simply that they are not necessarily existing according to the same dimensions as ours? If there are other universes they are not bound by space and time, but it is equally possible (I presume) that they are bound by two unimaginable dimensions and as such escape our detection regardless of the technology we possess? This seems, to me, to be a similar issue as described by Carl Sagan about the physical dimensions os 2D and 3D:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0
2:18 - 2:50

[Anomalocaris]

Yes I know that.

You didn't understand what I meant. Why aren't I you, rather than me? Why am I this consciousness in this body.

If I can experience this consciousness in this body, and let's face it it has happened!...what is there to say that I might not experience the consciousness in another body in another time?

You are a consciousness in your body because it is your body that manufactured and supported your consciousness. Why is this pair of rabbit's ears on this rabbit and not on that one? Because it is this rabbit's body that grew these particular ears. Simple enough?

To the OP, if you clone the rabbit, the ears don't reincarnate. There are now simply two pairs of identical ears. If you kill the rabbit, catalogue every atom in its body, clone a new rabbit out of the very same atoms, you would still have just another pair of identical ears. An atom is an atom. Whether it is the very same atom or just another identical atom, is of olympian indifference to the thing of which the atom is a part.

[Ace Otana]

Is there not a fundamental issue with this idea of observing other universes, simply that they are not necessarily existing according to the same dimensions as ours?

Mind blasting to say the least.

[Anomalocaris]

If there is evidence for other universes and the like, then this theory needs to be rechecked.

Hopefully with advancing technologies, we'll have more data. So we can be more sure.

Is there not a fundamental issue with this idea of observing other universes, simply that they are not necessarily existing according to the same dimensions as ours? If there are other universes they are not bound by space and time, but it is equally possible (I presume) that they are bound by two unimaginable dimensions and as such escape our detection regardless of the technology we possess?

In principle, it is possible for a two dimensional being to detect the existence of a third dimension, and even in principle understand what is transpiring in it.

Take for example light. It is possible to imagine a two dimensional universe that would be sensitive to light. But light would exhibit some odd properties in a two dimensional universe. If would for example follow the inverse square law in two dimensional distances. But it would not be intuitive, nor easily explanation within the context of 2 dimensions, how light can spread out by a mere factor of two and yet lose strength by a factor of 4. It would require an assumption of propagation of light into a third, otherwise unseen dimension, to explain just how light could behave in two dimension the way it does.

In other words, messenger particles detectable in N dimensions can exhibit properties suggestive of it also occupying a higher, otherwise unseen dimension.

So this is how in principle, another universe occupying dimensions we are not otherwise sensitive to can nonetheless exert pervasive influence upon our 3 dimensional universe.

There are physicists who postulate that light and electromegnetic force are truly a 3 dimensional force in that it can only propagate along our three dimensions. Even if there is a forth dimension, it would not travel along that extra-dimension. Objects in any of our three dimensions can detect electromegnetic force. But if some extra-dimensional object does not share any of our three dimensions, it won't detect our electromegnetic forces.

There is also theories postulating that gravity in fact propagates in more than 3 dimensions. In other words, gravity spreads out over short distances much more than can be accounted for by 3 dimensions. This suggests through gravity, we can detect events that is not, even in principle, detectable through light. It also suggests the possibility that some extra-dimensional objects that does not share any of our dimensions can still detect gravity from our universe, and conversely, we can detect gravity from things that is otherwise totally not in our universe.