Please delete this

[ken]

If the multiverse theory is true, it means that there are infinite number of planets, in fact infinite number of planets exact same as ours.

How and why does multiverse, 'mean', other planets exact same as ours? Just because there are other things, that in and of itself does not mean that they are the exact same.

For any thing to be the way it is every thing else has to also be the way they are.

If 'universe' means every thing (all there is), then 'multiverse' could only happen in the one and only universe. There can be different verses, which on first glance might appear to be like different universes, but there can not be different nor multi universes. If human beings now want to make up a new word like multiverse, then they will have to come up with a new word for everything or all there is.

Anyhow, for any one thing to exist the exact way it is NOW, so does every other thing also have to exist the exact way it is NOW. For different verses to be existing side-by-side in the exact same way as every other one, then there would need to be a definitive edge to each verse. This I think you will find does not occur.

For 'you' to die, and then live again the EXACT same life as you did this life, then the rest of the universe, everything, or, all there is, depending on what you want to call it, would also have to stop and start again with each of 'you' stopping and starting life's also. The wrongness of this is obvious if Life, Itself, continues on when a person dies.

There are infinite number of ''ME'' out there living the exact same life as me. Now you may agree or disagree of the theory, but if we take the path I did, which is that I believe in the theory, then I want to ask some basic questions:

1. If the theory is right and there is infinite multiverses out there , existing for eternity without beginning and without an end, does it mean that I personally , after I die, will live again the EXACT same life as I did this life, because according to quantum physics, energy can't be destroyed.
The atoms that makes me ''ME'' will eventually fall in the same order at some point in the infinity and therefore will keep on creating ''me'' over and over again. This idea kind of reminds me of Nietzsche's eternal return theory.

The answer is no, for reasons given above.

2.If your life is hard and you suffer in this world, you are basically entitled for eternal hell, without having the ability to escape, because after you die in this world, you are born in another yet exact same one. Your whole life will be the same again down to every atom, and you will keep repeating the miserable life for eternity.

The answer is no, for many varied reasons. One of them is no person's life is always hard and so they do not always suffer in this world, therefore they are not eternally in this type of "hell". No person has a completely always miserable life. ALL people are sometimes suffering as well as being in peace, happiness, and bliss. No person can have just one feeling and feel that exact same way always.

I expect answers that will counter attack my theory with ideas like if the infinity exists then there are infinite number of possible outcomes so ''my'' life will not come to exist because it was one time ''chance'' of happening.

However I partly agree with this, even though there would be infinite possibilities , it still doesn't eliminate the reappearance of the same possibility.

No it does not, but for any one thing to be the way it is, every other thing in the whole of everything has to be the way it is also. Therefore, for any one individual thing to repeat "its" life, then Life or Existence, Itself, would have to repeat also, and in an eternal and infinite Universe repeating just does not occur. Unless of course absolutely every physical piece of matter compresses into singularity, and then expands again, in the exact same way.

By the way if you expect answers like this or in any way, then if you are right about repeating "your life" over and over again in the EXACT same ways, then you will be expecting the EXACT same answers in all of those life's, as well as getting the EXACT same answers that you are getting RIGHT NOW, from Me. Therefore, if you are right, then it would not matter one bit at all.

[Noax]

If the multiverse theory is true, it means that there are infinite number of planets, in fact infinite number of planets exact same as ours. There are infinite number of ''ME'' out there living the exact same life as me.

If MWI is true, and you are speaking in that context, you will need to redefine what is 'a planet', 'ME', numeric identity of anything etc. I would personally say there is one Earth and a lot of versions of it. No particular version is 'the Earth' any more than the particular version of Noax as of entering this post is 'the' Noax even in a single-threaded interpretation of QM.

For the record, I find MWI to be the most plausible interpretation, so I've spent plenty of time considering the implications of that.

1. If the theory is right and there is infinite multiverses out there , existing for eternity without beginning and without an end, does it mean that I personally , after I die, will live again the EXACT same life as I did this life, because according to quantum physics, energy can't be destroyed.

One: MWI is a branching model, not one of parallel universes which have always existed. Anyway, you're going to have to define "I" for your question to make any sort of sense. Do you have a dualist identity? If so, when you split, which clone keeps that identity and what happens to the other one? I don't see how any form of identity-giving dualism can work with MWI. Without the dualism, there is no "I" to live again or even to be who you are now.

The atoms that makes me ''ME'' will eventually fall in the same order at some point in the infinity and therefore will keep on creating ''me'' over and over again. This idea kind of reminds me of Nietzsche's eternal return theory.

You are your specific atoms then? Those come and go continuously, so you are not the person you were a decade ago (or a second ago). Under MWI, the same atoms never ever come back to reform an object. Atoms themselves have no identity.

2.If your life is hard and you suffer in this world, you are basically entitled for eternal hell, without having the ability to escape, because after you die in this world, you are born in another yet exact same one. Your whole life will be the same again down to every atom, and you will keep repeating the miserable life for eternity.

Now you change the definition of "I" to a soul, which is very incompatible with MWI interpretation. You comment about repetition is one of determinism, not of MWI.

If you have a soul, and you split into two worlds, and one of the clones does what it takes to get to heaven and the other earns hell, do 'you' go to heaven or hell? Or does God have an infinity of therammo's to divide into a very large heaven and hell?

[Noax]

If the multiverse theory is true, it means that there are infinite number of planets, in fact infinite number of planets exact same as ours.

How and why does multiverse, 'mean', other planets exact same as ours? Just because there are other things, that in and of itself does not mean that they are the exact same.

Good point. 'The universe' as in not the multiverse usually refers to here and anything that has a causal effect or can be effected by here. Everything else is completely undetectable, and thus beyond 'all that there is', which is covered by the various types of multiverses.

There are 4-5 types of multiverses (enumerated by Tegmark) and my post presumed MWI (type 3), but therammo did not actually specify it. Just multiverse in general, like a bunch of eternally separate (identical?). So not sure what kind is being referenced, and I suspect he doesn't know himself.

Type 0 (my designation) is other times. If Sept 24 2015 exists as much as Sept 24 2016, that's another Earth in a different state. If you buy into that, nothing 'happens again', so I don't think therammo is talking about that since the post speaks of living the same life again.

Type 1 is places too distant for interaction. So I cannot possibly detect or interact in any way with a planet 15BLY distant, yet it might exist. Perhaps this is what therammo means. A different set of atoms can (and does) form an exact copy of me that lives the exact same life. Therammo spoke of the same atoms coming back together, which just sort of implies a zero entropy steady state improbability which is not a multiverse at all. Type 2 is the multiverse of infinite inflation bubbles. There is no 'me' or Earth in those since the laws of physics is different in each of them. Type 3 is MWI interpretation of QM, and was the subject of my prior post. There is no identical 'me' in them since if they were absolutely identical, it would not be a separate world. Type 4 is unrelated structures and is certainly not what we're talking about.

Technically, types 0-3 make up one single structure which one can label 'the universe' if you like, but then a different name is needed for this subset of things available to empirical detection. Usually universe does not mean 'all there is', just all that matters to us.

[Noax]

Think about this. We are currently living in an universe that came to existence from big bang. Lets assume that EVERYTHING that is in our universe is translated to a number, e.g 55^150

Speak for yourself. 'Came into existence' is a term used to describe a thing created within the time of the universe. Your wording implies a time when the universe did not exist, which implies time outside the universe, not as part of it. I don't subscribe to this view.

Lets assume that we actually can see beyond big bang, it would probably be vast darkness that gives life to new big bangs like demonstrated in ''bubble multiverse theory'' . Now, every of those new universes that come from big bangs have different laws of physics, but since the space and time outside the bubble universes are infinite, it means that not only will there be one of a kind universe, but there will be infinite configurations of them but also infinite copies of the ones that already exist.

Oh, you're speaking of type 2 multiverse. Pretty much ignore my first post to this thread then. Not sure if there can be infinite copies of an infinite size thing, even given infinite tries. Depends on the ordinals of the two infinities.

So lets say that an universe where Obama is not president , that universe has a ''number'' 55^151 as opposed of our current universe where Obama is president (55^150).

If Obama is not president in it, it is not a copy.

The likelihood of an universe like this coming to existence is extremely low and infinitely close to zero, yet, given infinite energy, space and time, what makes you think that the same configuration (55^150) will not come to existence again?

Again? It is elsewhere, not 'again'. The latter implies a sort of serialization, a temporal relation between the two. There is none.

I agree that if the multiverse were finite but any means, then it would be another topic, but in this case, I can't grasp the idea of something like our universe not being able to come to existence again given infinite materials.

One does not need to reach for eternal inflation bubble theory to do this sort of analysis. Our own 'bang' is infinite in size, far larger than the 14BLY radius subset that we detect. Go far enough away and there is another Earth with a copy of you and president Obama in it. It was even computed how far away the nearest such point was. There is no temporal relation (or any other relation) between us and them, so there is still no 'again' about it.
Considering distant places is more fruitful than considering other bubbles since at least distant places have the same physics.
So you expect to reincarnate in each of them in turn, in a judgemental religious context? How does one get out of hell to do that, or why would one want to exit heaven to do that?

[Lacewing]

The atoms that makes me ''ME'' will eventually fall in the same order at some point in the infinity and therefore will keep on creating ''me'' over and over again.

So imagine how LONG and VAST infinity is.

Now, considering that, how long would it take for the "me" that you currently know to be recreated in the exact same configuration, while all the other possibilities that might involve elements of "you" are getting a chance to play out too? So why are you focused on this ONE configuration of "me"... and what might happen to it over and over, when there is so much else that can happen? In the space of infinity, do you think such a potential repetition would even matter?

If your life is hard and you suffer in this world, you are basically entitled for eternal hell, without having the ability to escape, because after you die in this world, you are born in another yet exact same one. Your whole life will be the same again down to every atom, and you will keep repeating the miserable life for eternity.

Why would an infinite universe of possibilities function like that? Why wouldn't it continually be exploring and morphing into new creations? There is no growth in creating the same thing over and over. In an infinite universe, wouldn't growth be infinite too?

[Noax]

I'm not quite sure you understand what I mean.

I on the other hand am quite sure I don't understand what you mean. But for starters, you need to indicate the poster to which your comments are intended. More than one of us has responded, and it is really unclear.

You seem perhaps not to define a religious 'soul', but rather an identity based on a specific arrangement of atoms, which do not all have the same path, unless you restrict you selection of candidates to the ones that just happen to take identical paths. Making just those into a single identity seems to be a designation you're choosing to make. If that results in 'eternal hell', then why not include the ones with less hellish paths ahead of them?

The specific atoms from which you are currently comprised will never ever again come together the same way. Infinite time will not help. There are thermodynamics to be considered. So if you define yourself as 'these atoms', you exist for but a moment, and never again. If other atoms will do, and exact copies count, then how is that a case of "living again?" instead of just "also living over there". Trying to understand what is bugging you about the existence of exact physical copies in the multiverse.

[Noax]

The thing that is bugging me is the fact that I will live again. My life is not good so I wouldn't want it to be repeated. You mention that the specific atoms will not come together in the same way again, but my question would be, why? Is there something stopping it?

Thermodynamics prevents it. If by chance your atoms come together again, it will be well after Earth is gone. It will not be a human since the universe would be too cold to support humans. It would not be you.

All the scenarios in the other posts are about different atoms coming together in a similar (identical?) way to yours in this life. But that is not repetition, it is duplication. I can make 100 identical toasters in a factory, but it is not one toaster repeated over and over, it is 100 different toasters, each experiencing its own toaster hell once, not repeatedly.

So you don't want there to be a 'not good' life lived by another? Fine that you would find this distasteful. But why would it be you that lives it instead of just another identical life lived? You don't want another to live a bad life, or you don't want to be the one to live it? This is the question I'm trying to get from your responses. What makes that other life 'you' and not, for instance, mine? Just because it is identical? What about identical except for a minor variation in the last seconds? Where is the line drawn?

[Terrapin Station]

That any scientists "take seriously" the multiverse theory should be an embarrassment to the sciences.

[Noax]

That any scientists "take seriously" the multiverse theory should be an embarrassment to the sciences.

To which 'thoery' do you refer? All are interpretations, not theories.

One of the most basic is just the distant-place one. You find it embarrassing to suggest that universe exists beyond the event horizon? The alternative is either a universe so tightly curved that you could see young Earth if you looked deep enough, or
one which throws the Copernican principle to the wind and posits a sudden edge to it all with all the matter on one side and who knows what on the other, into which everything is expanding. Each alternative interpretation seems far more of an embarrassment than the multiverse of distant places beyond empirical detection.

[Noax]

I'm not talking about the same atoms coming together in this universe again.

Sorry. Got that from this in the OP:

The atoms that makes me ''ME'' will eventually fall in the same order at some point in the infinity and therefore will keep on creating ''me'' over and over again.

Once this universe gets too cold and collapses it sure as hell isnt gonna be recycled again. I'm not talking about a new big bang that is exactly the same as ours , thus completely identical. And since every configuration is identical to ours, then it is us. You will live again and so will I.

You're not talking about that either? Or was that a typo?

What you're describing is still 'elsewhere'. I don't think the math supports two infinite size universes being identical, regardless of the number of attempts, or any concept of one happening, and the later the next. I don't see how this is living 'again', even if you designate it as 'us'.

[Terrapin Station]

To which 'thoery' do you refer? All are interpretations, not theories.

No need to get all Aspie. I'm talking about MWI.

[Noax]

No need to get all Aspie. I'm talking about MWI.

Not what therammo seems to be talking about. He seems to be talking inflation bubbles (type 2), which is admittedly actually a theory, not just an interpretation. The sort of replication in his description is more easily achieved through the (type 1) multiverse of distant places, but I think that somehow he finds that less of an example of 'it all happening again'. Sure, far away (a computable distance) there is another Noax making this exact post, but I lay no claim that it's me. There may be another inflation bubble bubble that is an exact copy of this one. I find it mathematically far less plausible since it requires an infinite number of dice to come up identical, not a potentially finite number as in the type-1 case.

OK, you find MWI interpretation to be implausible, but you express that you find it embarrassing that not all scientists agree with you. It seems a more elegant solution than one requiring explanation of effects in the past of their causes.

[Terrapin Station]

MWI isn't just implausible, it's incoherent.

Scientists should just stick to doing science instrumentally and not try to do ontology.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

MWI isn't just implausible, it's incoherent.

Scientists should just stick to doing science instrumentally and not try to do ontology.

Actually scientists are human too, and it seems incredible to them too, but they can't deny it when the maths works.

[ken]

Think about this. We are currently living in an universe that came to existence from big bang. Lets assume that EVERYTHING that is in our universe is translated to a number, e.g 55^150

Lets assume that we actually can see beyond big bang, it would probably be vast darkness that gives life to new big bangs like demonstrated in ''bubble multiverse theory'' . Now, every of those new universes that come from big bangs have different laws of physics, but since the space and time outside the bubble universes are infinite, it means that not only will there be one of a kind universe, but there will be infinite configurations of them but also infinite copies of the ones that already exist. So lets say that an universe where Obama is not president , that universe has a ''number'' 55^151 as opposed of our current universe where Obama is president (55^150).
The likelihood of an universe like this coming to existence is extremely low and infinitely close to zero, yet, given infinite energy, space and time, what makes you think that the same configuration (55^150) will not come to existence again?

I agree that if the multiverse were finite but any means, then it would be another topic, but in this case, I can't grasp the idea of something like our universe not being able to come to existence again given infinite materials.

In absolute infiniteness, then I suppose anything at all is possible. But what is the point you want to get to regarding knowing/understanding this?