# If universe is infinite and time is infinite, doesn't that mean that "after-life" exist?

Here is the reasoning... If universe is infinite and time is infinite, then there has to be an instance where our life is 100% simulated (in some computer and such). And there has to be an instance of that simulation where simulation will ensure when a person die it will transferred to "after life".

So if universe infinite and time is infinite, then after life does exist. How yo disproof this? Which author did extensive work on this subject?

EDIT: Maybe the question can be put like this: if we live in "simulated" world inside infinite (space and time) universe then after-life must exists.

• "If universe is infinite and time is infinite, then there has to be an instance where our life is 100% simulated (in some computer and such)" Can you explain why such an inference ? Mar 22 '15 at 8:59
• @clippy As of now, our knowledge (observables - not sure if that is right term here) are limited (bounded in computer science terms). Some calculation shows that entire "universe" we are aware of can be simulated with quantum computer with 64 q-bits. This simulation will not simulate quantum part of our universe - but all our observables done by today can be simulated. Mar 22 '15 at 22:27
• 'Can be' and 'are' are two very different statements. Everyone in the world can be adequately fed from what we produce, and yet it is not so.
– user9166
Dec 27 '18 at 0:55
• I'm not sure how a simulation is the same thing as an afterlife. Apr 21 '20 at 6:01

## 3 Answers

Well here's the thing: You assume "universe" is both the physical universe and a simulation thereof at the same time. You have to pick one. For example, if you are in a simulation you really need to apply computer science, which is all finite with the exception of a Turing Machine. If you are in the "physical" universe, you have to solve the metaphysical question of why physical law is universal, which on it's face appears to imply a finite space. There isn't even the slightest reason to make physical law universal inside an engineered simulation, in fact this is what you imply.

So basically you are discussing "physical law", which (from Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science, 2004, Christopher Hitchcock, editor) section 0.2.3, where "law" implies regularity, which, again, is what you seek to undermine. There is no accepted evidence for non-regularity.

• I assume "universe" in both the physical universe and a simulation at the same time because I'm assuming that you know never know in which one you live. It could be that when you die you go to "simulated version". But your answer is the right one: There is no accepted evidence for non-regularity. Mar 22 '15 at 14:44

I think that doesn't follow. For consider the following.

You can have an infinitely long number sequence, that is constructed like this: 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, ...

No '2' ever occurs in this sequence. Likewise, not everything possible must occur if universe and time are both infinite. It might just be that something like an after-life is like the '2' in the sequence form above.

• That is actually not true if you ask Boltzmann, Boltzmann in his paper wrote quite a convincing argument that in state of chaos everything can happen. Which paper do you think refutes Boltzmann's theory in most efficient way? Mar 23 '15 at 3:02
• I tried to find the relevant paper but failed. Could you give me a link or name and year of it? If a state of chaos is so important for your argument, you should include it as a premise. And you, or Boltzmann, should have an argument why in a state of chaos it is impossible to have a sequence as in my post. Mar 23 '15 at 8:19
• @morgan_raden What do you mean by "in a state of chaos everything can happen"? Do you mean that there can be a four-sided triangle, or a male mare, or a circle whose circumference/diameter ratio is not π? Clearly there are things that cannot happen, ever. Apr 29 '18 at 14:53
• @morgan_raden - If anything can happen in a state of chaos, then it follows that there can be absolutely no regularity concerning "afterlives". Maybe there is such thing for some, and not for others, and such afterlife can be miserable for good people while Hitler's is paradisiacal. Not sure what this brings of positive to a philosophical system. Dec 27 '18 at 11:40

No matter if the Universe is infinite in time and space, nothing impossible can occur. Last I read, it appeared that it was impossible to create a completely convincing simulation of the Universe.

Just because the Universe is eternal doesn't mean that everything possible will happen. The Big Rip is considered possible. In the example in the article, in 22 billion years the Universe will be completely torn apart, so that no interaction between particles will be possible ever again. A lesser version might tear galaxies apart, and leave individual universe fragments that are complex enough to experience time. In that case, if a simulation needs the resources of a galaxy to create, and takes long enough to process, it could be impossible, even in an infinitely large Universe.

If the Universe is infinite, that doesn't mean that all examples of an uncountably infinite set will happen. If there's stuff that depends on exact real numbers, and we can divide the Universe into an infinite number of spacetime volumes, not everything possible can occur.

If we live in the real universe, and an exact simulation is impossible, then our experiences are limited by the laws of physics, which don't guarantee the existence of an afterlife.

Now, if we do live in a simulated Universe, and the real Universe is infinite, there's got to be a simulation where the entities like us aren't just deleted when we die, but our data structures are moved to a different environment. Assuming that our simulation wasn't programmed that way, does this count as the existence of an afterlife, when beings like us that we can't perceive have one?