Article Time and the universe are on an infinite loop

[C C]

https://iai.tv/articles/time-and-the-uni..._auid=2020

INTRO: Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a radical attempt to provide a comprehensive alternative to cosmology’s standard story where our universe, or aeon, is one of many in a successive chain each new universe is different from the last. However, philosopher of physics, Baptiste Le Bihan, presents a radically different perspective to Penrose's. He argues, each new universe in the cycle is not new, rather it is the same universe repeating itself. Our universe is on an infinite time-loop, with every ending it is re-born, and everything happens exactly the same; this offers theoretical weight to ancient, religious and Nietzschean ideas of the eternal return, with massive consequences for science, philosophy, and the way we live our lives.

EXCERPTS: [...] Penrose interprets conformal cyclic cosmology as a worldview wherein our universe is just one among many universes ordered in a long chain. However, an alternative interpretation of conformal cyclic cosmology appears consistent: that the previous and successive universes are two faces of the same coin. The two aeons could in fact turn out to be the very same universe, a view I have suggested elsewhere to call ‘aeon monism’. Our aeon would be the only universe looping back on itself in a web of temporally closed paths, so that the past and the future are identical.

If we live in this giant loop then when we look at distant stars in a summer night, we aren’t not only glimpsing into the past of the universe, but also into its future. Everything that happened in the past, will happen in the future. Everything that will happen in the future, already happened in the past...

[...] Does this mean that everything is bound to happen over and over again, an eternal return of the sort discussed by Nietzsche and a number of Ancient thinkers? This depends on the nature of time. If we live in a four-dimensional space-time as suggested by relativistic physics, then there is no flow of time properly speaking, and nothing is really returning. Everything simply is the way it is, in an ordered sequence. But if time is really flowing, then there might be room for a view in which things are successively, and endlessly, reborn. The only philosophy of time ruled out by aeon monism is the growing block theory, which ascribes reality to the past but not to the future. Indeed, how could it be that existing past events turn out to be identical to non-existing future events? (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Is there really much difference between a looping universe and one that just eternally exists as all of its temporal developments? Nothing is going to be experiencing a so-called "flow of time" except organisms that are at least quasi-conscious and quasi-intelligent. Just save a step, since little sense can be made of objectifying the flow -- it's like claiming a book resting on the shelf is turning and reading its pages.

[Magical Realist]

It would make an interesting sci-fi novel. Everyone replaying their lifetimes over and over without ever remembering the previous ones. Then say a curious scientist leaves himself a message for his next lifetime, which allows him to sort of wake up when he reads it and so change his predestined life. Eventually the man lives his life and makes his choices based on the output of a random number generator, leaving the course of his life totally random and so capable of being changed. Sort of reminiscent of the film "Groundhog Day"..

[stryder]

A World Builder analogy would imply that we shouldn't worry about loops.

For instance lets say I built the universe and in my infinite wisdom I utilised a very complex method involving multi-worlds to make it possible.

From my perspective to exist in ones own universe would mean that I wouldn't need to recreate the "Base/Default" universe to begin with, as it's already been done by a previous iteration, instead my focus would be on adding more and more layers/dimensions to what already exists.  Most of those layers would be complimentary and focus on increasing depth and detail, while others(branches) might be explorative in the sense of being research, however the outcomes of which would likely be short-lived as to not to interfere with the main "trunk".

This would mean that the universe would be more of a fractal (with morphism) and tunnelled, than flat and repetitive, with constant changes being reflected throughout time.  albeit at the same time their would be a singular path (trunk) maintaining the default stance so as to not to have the whole universe consumed by chaos.  (complete chaos would lead to the inability to stabilise systems that we use to work with/from, such as; matter, atomic states, molecules etc)

Further to this there is also the Creator<>Destroyer analogy. 

While the above (World Builder) can lead to the creation of a universe... If it was so precise and replicable, our world would be prone to people attempting to recreate and rework it to suit their purposes (rather than leaving it be). 

So inversely I would have to desecrate my own work by rolling back my own life by destroying paths that could of lead to reaching such a lofty goal, just to make sure that no one could catch up or replace the default stance that previously existed.

(Best way to theorise in these is sometimes as the protagonist, thus why it's first person )