Reincarnation of the consciousness is inevitable

[automaton]

OK, argument disproven, but I'll try to respond where I can to help explain how I came to this better.

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.

In an infinite amount of time it's IMPOSSIBLE for everything to not occur infinitely, even if that everything is also infinitely varied. If there's an infinite amount of time, I would say it IS necessary that all of them must be repeated. Infinity isn't a finite number, so we can't treat it in the same way.

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.

The whole syllogism is badly worded because I was originally going to write it as a paragraph but quickly transferred it into this format before posting.

How am I "affirming the consequent"? To me it is self evident that time cannot have had a beginning because the whole notion of a beginning rests upon the premise of there being a before and after the event. If there is no before the event then there can be no start of the event.

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.

Most popular theories that I know of that are widely supported go against this notion (i.e. string theory). Either way, if you say time did not exist before the big bang then you come to the same problem that I demonstrated in response to the above post.

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.

Fair enough, this reminds me of what someone else said in response to a similar question. He used the analogy of a coin, where if the coin is flipped and lands on heads every time, it's the same coin but it's a completely different occurrence (due to changing conditions). However, my point is that if time is TRULY infinite then there will come a point (and an infinite amount of points) where the conditions are EXACTLY the same, nothing at all is different in the universe, not even to the fraction of an atom. At this point, with the same matter, why will it not be "me"? I don't think you're fully realising the extent of infinity. It's not probability, it's certainty.

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!".

Yeah but what I meant by "feel right" was mainly that I can't logically conceive of it. That's different to those things you listed because, whilst wacky, it doesn't defy what I have (supposedly, though it will probably be disputed after this post) demonstrated to be analytic logic. It's analytic logic because to imply a start of time is internally incoherent.

Your syllogism is bad and you should feel bad.

I don't feel bad for creating a "bad" syllogism. If it's bad and it gets proven wrong then it's something that I can learn from. If I had truly created a fool-proof, a priori argument using deductive reasoning that demonstrated reincarnation to be true, I'm pretty sure my name would be in a book somewhere, lol.

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?

If you want a true definition of physical time then you'd be better speaking to a physicist. I believe I've already stated why I thought that time cannot have a beginning or an end. This is because it seems to me that it is an analytic truth that time cannot have a "before", because the whole notion of "before" implies a TIME before. There needs to be a before for there to be an event of "starting".

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.

OK this is the only thing that I can't even really attempt to answer, bravo. I could respond by simply restating that if time is truly infinite surely something will have to happen, perhaps from a source external to the current universe, that triggers something. But of course that's supposition and a weak argument.

So far the only actual problem with my argument that I can see is that it's not necessarily reasonable to assume that when time is infinite, there has to be infinite recurrences of infinite things.


So, with that out the way, if possible, I'd like to debate some more the idea of a "finite" time being internally incoherent.