Reincarnation

[Mountain]

Can you falsify the theory below?

I'm sure we can all agree that our specific genetic makeup determines our physical and conscious state at the moment of conception. Conception is basically the exact moment in which a sperm fertilises a egg and your being is essentially created, pretty straight forward.

Genetic mutation is basically a re-arrangement of your genetic composition through DNA alteration; it can occur due to an infinite numbers of reasons and is pretty much random.

Because of genetic mutation, your genetic composition after birth cannot truly be predetermined with 100% accuracy and is in fact subject to randomness, for example; if your dad has a dominant gene for brown eyes and your mother a recessive gene for black eyes, you should get brown eyes, but due to the possibility of genetic alteration occurring before conception it's possible for you to have eye colors that are completely random and different to that of your parents once born, it rarely happens, but scientists agree that the possibility exists.

Now this is where things get interesting:

Because the probability of random genetic mutation occurring will always exist; does this not mean that a baby with your exact genetic makeup must eventually be birthed again by reason of mathematical probability? In other words, does this not mean that you will be "born again" eventually?

The chance that genetic mutation can randomly create your exact genetic makeup is extremely slim, I'm sure we can all agree to that, but consider this; the chance of winning the lottery is slim right? The chance of you winning in your life time is slim, but hypothetically speaking if you lived forever and kept playing it, you would have to win it eventually, wont you?

The latter example illustrates that an anomalous event occurring within a set of infinite repetitions is certain, therefore, if space is imperishable, as we all know it to be, then the probability of any possible event occurring within it becomes a certainty, or a must, over the course of its perpetuity.

Therefore, even though the chance of genetic mutation randomly creating your exact genetic makeup is extremely slim, even if it is 1 in one centillion to the power of a billion, it "must" occur at some point under the condition of perpetual space and time.

Considering all the above, my final question is this: logically speaking, does this not mean that when we die we will literally be born again? Does this not make re-reincarnation a scientifically plausible concept?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Technically, on your lottery point, the odds that you win the lottery are essentially the same every time you play it. For instance, losing one lotto drawing doesn't increase your odds to win the next one.

On the genetic combination point, I suppose it is possible, but you are assuming that genetics completely make you who you are. When talking about re-incarnation, you have to acknowledge the possibilities of the spirit/soul, other spiritual entities and general esoteric truths. Even if my exact genetics were combined again, it wouldn't be from the same parents (genetically), and there is no guarantee that my unique soul/spirit is bound to my genetic code, only to my corporeal nature at the moment.

 

[MMS]

technically yes, but the probability is infinitesimally small

and as dude said above, your consciousness isnt stored in DNA, so the new you would have no recollection of the old you, and by behavior could be a different person altogether

 

[Hawaiian Punch]

From a mathematical standpoint everything is possible. Certain things just have an infinitesimally small probability of occurring. Stupid example but there is no such thing as a solid. Atoms have a degree of distance between them, so if you pushed against a wall long enough you would in theory pass through it.

As far as being reborn genetically with the same 'consciousness', That's a tough one..

 

[Pool_Shark]

Everyone here agrees that it's a long shot but possible.

A person that looks like exactly like you with a brain exactly like yours is possible, but a person with the exact same thoughts and personality I can't buy. The way you think and imagine this world is a result of all the things you've seen, heard, smelled, or tasted. So if this were to happen it would be impossible for this person to grow up and think exactly the same about everything as another person previously has.

What about identical twins?

 

[MMS]

Everyone here agrees that it's a long shot but possible.

A person that looks like exactly like you with a brain exactly like yours is possible, but a person with the exact same thoughts and personality I can't buy. The way you think and imagine this world is a result of all the things you've seen, heard, smelled, or tasted. So if this were to happen it would be impossible for this person to grow up and think exactly the same about everything as another person previously has.

What about identical twins?

improbable, but not quite impossible

 

[Pool_Shark]

improbable, but not quite impossible

 

[BlvdBrawler]

improbable, but not quite impossible

That's a whole different order of magnitude of improbable, though. That's like 10^-470 level of improbable (no I didn't really do the math).

 

[Bitchesluhbsmileyfaces]

No, I have to disagree. It is impossible- meaning the probability is close enough to zero, not that it 'could' never ever happen.

The lottery example, I assume there's a finite amount of combinations/sequencing but playing every day, theoretically your chance resets with each draw, it doesn't change based on the number of times you play. I suspect it would play out like the Heads/Tails scenario, where there is eventually a 'favorite'- still has no effect on you as an individual winning.

But going to chromosomes, one, you're assuming that human beings will exist forever (false). Discounting that, two, we're not only comprised of genes (factor in epigenes and expression that has to do with environment and interactions of other agents, the world will not look how it does today, and two people will NEVER have the exact same unique set of experiences, which do bear influence on who/what a person is). Third, I don't believe 23 chromosomes *(however many cells we have) have a finite set of combinations to comprise a human, and the persistence of genetic diseases/carrier traits is another addition to the diversity of the human genome. Lastly, I don't know if 'race'/feature mixture will yield more or less similarities across gene maps.

It's interesting that you used this as an example for reincarnation, I envision it as the opposite- that your conscience is what would be another iteration of 'you,' not the physical properties. And as for the 'improbable' versus 'impossible,' it likely has more to do with it being difficult to prove it's impossible (does science confirm, prove, falsify, etc.), it doesn't violate any physical laws or other properties we assign to the universe, but I def have to disagree with your certainty that it 'has' to happen.

 

[Bitchesluhbsmileyfaces]

I think you have a false equivalence there, in short.

 

[Type Username Here]

When the probability of something occurring is near zero or approaching zero, one can be safe to quantify it impossible in some sense.

 

[Dooby]

On sohh I presented a theory of mine that no one there could theoretically falsify, so I’m left wondering if perhaps any posters here could. Below is the theory in question:

Great post. I'll say that right off the bat.

But, your reasoning is flawed when you say time is infinite.

This current universe we live in is the only "reality" we can confirm, and we know for a fact that the universe will eventually "die" and will no longer be able to sustain life.

With that being said, no reincarnation is not a scientifically plausible event based on your argument.

 

[Dooby]

[NVM]

 

[MMS]

No, I have to disagree. It is impossible- meaning the probability is close enough to zero, not that it 'could' never ever happen.

The lottery example, I assume there's a finite amount of combinations/sequencing but playing every day, theoretically your chance resets with each draw, it doesn't change based on the number of times you play. I suspect it would play out like the Heads/Tails scenario, where there is eventually a 'favorite'- still has no effect on you as an individual winning.

But going to chromosomes, one, you're assuming that human beings will exist forever (false). Discounting that, two, we're not only comprised of genes (factor in epigenes and expression that has to do with environment and interactions of other agents, the world will not look how it does today, and two people will NEVER have the exact same unique set of experiences, which do bear influence on who/what a person is). Third, I don't believe 23 chromosomes *(however many cells we have) have a finite set of combinations to comprise a human, and the persistence of genetic diseases/carrier traits is another addition to the diversity of the human genome. Lastly, I don't know if 'race'/feature mixture will yield more or less similarities across gene maps.

It's interesting that you used this as an example for reincarnation, I envision it as the opposite- that your conscience is what would be another iteration of 'you,' not the physical properties. And as for the 'improbable' versus 'impossible,' it likely has more to do with it being difficult to prove it's impossible (does science confirm, prove, falsify, etc.), it doesn't violate any physical laws or other properties we assign to the universe, but I def have to disagree with your certainty that it 'has' to happen.

youre arguing assumptions vs assumptions

if by sheer chance the human race exists today, in some far past or far future the same could happen again

which means the same people could happen again, and an individual person could be the same down to the very thoughts decisions and the things that happen to them by others all the way down to individual minute incident

as Blvd said that number would be a very large negative exponent, in fact its probably millions times more than -470

eitherway, while clearly improbable. Not quite impossible. Given enough time and the assumption the universe is infinite, another you is bound to exist

ill say this much, its improbable to the point that i wouldnt bet on reincarnating and remembering anything

 

[Bitchesluhbsmileyfaces]

youre arguing assumptions vs assumptions

if by sheer chance the human race exists today, in some far past or far future the same could happen again

which means the same people could happen again, and an individual person could be the same down to the very thoughts decisions and the things that happen to them by others all the way down to individual minute incident

as Blvd said that number would be a very large negative exponent, in fact its probably millions times more than -470

eitherway, while clearly improbable. Not quite impossible. Given enough time and the assumption the universe is infinite, another you is bound to exist

ill say this much, its improbable to the point that i wouldnt bet on reincarnating and remembering anything

Those aren't related events, though. The op stated that simply because of the remote possibility of your gene sequence repeating, that is has to eventually happen if time stretches to infinity, which isn't the case. Nor is your example. Previous existence nor future existence of "humans" across those kinds of time (and space) gaps wouldn't be related; we can only reasonably speak on existence based on our sense and current knowledge of existence, which as far as we accept/know, is 'linear' and uninterrupted for homo sapiens. You have to make some assumptions, but those in the original argument have no causal/historical pattern that necessitates human existence in the universe.