OK.
So

1. Assume infinite space time
2. Assume given infinite space time, all things will occur
3. Given that all things occur, a perfect copy of you will appear somewhere that keeps living
4. Assume this is related to the current you, and the same thing as you
5. Ignore that all possibilities occurring in infinite time means 99.9999% you'll wake up in hell, given the ratio of functional:dysfunctional states and the tiny fraction of pain and anguish free states as compared to all states (the conditions needed for happiness are extremely narrow).

Seems like a philosophy no one would take seriously, and if they did, it's not something at all to take comfort in. Even assuming that a clone of you is you (a big philosophical stretch).

When it recurs exactly as it was at the moment of your birth, it will be you again, exactly as you were. Becoming exactly as you are. When it doesn't, it won't be the same you, but an experiencer all the same.

There are assumptions to every ontology. If we are to count up the assumptions to the ontology that I suspect you subscribe to, you'd probably be surprised.

Let's begin with 4:

1. That the universe existed before conciousness.
2. That the universe existed before something to perceive it.
3. That the universe is finite/limited to the observable universe.
4. Subjective experience can end.

I have evidence against these 4 and it's far simpler than what's suggested by emergence and models of a finite universe. And note - I know you won't consider this evidence:

I don't ever recount not experiencing.
Why would i believe there will be such a time?

Ive seen people get old. Ill get old. Ive seen people get seriously sick. Ill get seriously sick. Ive seen people die. Ill die. Ive seen whether death means the end of experience? No. Neither has anyone.

Que...but, but brain death means x, y, z...

Your ontology suggests that seeing others die means the end of all their experience. Mine suggests it doesn't. The end of their experience here - yes. Within this pocket of infinity - yes. Everywhere? Impossible.

Its like the God of the gaps argument, isnt it? Because we cant know what happens subjectively after death, insert whatever the hell rubbish you want. Because we cant know if theres anything beyond the observable universe, insert whatever feels good that month.

Perhaps.

Now is the best applicable time for crafting poetry about before and after.

OK well this is interesting. Deserves a little brain time/a proper response.

I like your "perhaps"

[My Bold]

Note the bold. You need an honest and searching self-quest to become unstuck. A simple rational analysis of your underlying premises and assumptions is required. An adventure you must undertake on your own.

I'm beginning to see why you are still a bit muddleheaded. The problem may be two pronged - Substandard Weed and Improper Beer Intake. The latter you need to adjust yourself. The former I can help with. I have a unique friend that is a master gardener; his weed is above reproach. He yaps on and on about lighting requirements and duration, proper nutrients and soil type , starting with the best seeds, and most important, the right time to add those special plant supplements when the buds first appear and etc., etc. Long ago he supplemented his income for college with his special bud production.

One ounce is $100,000,000. Payment in Gold Bullion only. Nirvana is guaranteed. I'll leave the rest up to you.

I enjoy sloppyhowler and have a few of his books dangling from my ceiling. That he plagiarized and rephrased some Epicurus and Lucretius* is what to expect from German Barbarians. Nonetheless he is a worthy read. Mr. Waterfall Mustache is also worth reading, but never in a sober state. You miss too much.

*Lucretius' didactic poem, De rerum natura.

The first three seem unnecessary assumptions. If you assume that a reasonable definition of "consciousness" is what we are talking about when we are talking about consciousness, then you certainly weren't conscious before your sensory apparatus was in working order. Consciousness is an action just like taking a walk in the park is an action. In regard to you currently being on a walk in the park, it doesn't matter at all whether walks in the park existed before the universe, the universe existed before parks to walk on existed, walks not in parks existed, or whether there are walks and parks that are beyond the observable universe.

Number 4 doesn't seem like an assumption at all. It is a reasonable description of every bit of empirical and anecdotal evidence. If you've lived at all, you have lost consciousness at some point in life and have experienced altered states of consciousness. You've probably also noticed that Great Grandma didn't even move when you were closing the coffin despite "claustrophobia" being the most important essence of her being. You could say that she is still potentially aware/conscious, but that clearly makes her (in her current state) not at all herself.

Going the other way, you weren't you before you were conceived. That you were sort of kind of you in some sort of way is, of course, just silly talk. Perhaps the existential dread you are currently feeling is because you absorbed the consciousness of the salad you ate earlier today. The lettuce is still screaming!

You could try to claim that Great Grandma is just chill about being in enclosed areas now, but that would clearly make her not-really Great Grandma.

The universe is alive, has soul, and of course consciousness; each being to their own level of consciousness.

I wouldn't say "of course,"* but it is at least remotely possible. Doesn't matter at all to me, the same as it doesn't matter to my big toenail on my left foot whether I am conscious.

*I do not and cannot know what being a rock or a universe feels like or whether it feels like anything at all. I'm pretty sure that rocks don't stroll around in parks pondering life. My toenail participates in my walks, but not really in a meaningful way.

**It used to have James Brown, so, in a way, soul. It now has dead and rotting James Brown and some recordings of him. The universe is **** at working a phonograph though. Poor universe. Has billions of opposable thumbs in it, yet forced to mostly listen to cosmic background noise in its non-existent ears. This is probably all for the best since it drowns out the Skrillex.

I'm not denying the reality of death. Nor am I denying the end of subjective experience as it pertains to this particular universe.

Humour aside, and there is a decent amount here. You're addressing an argument that i have not made. I appreciate the humour but it's come at the cost of relevance.

Whether walks in parks exist beyond the observable universe matters greatly to potential conclusions about experience after death. If you can't experience non-experience whose to say it exists? Whether you live in a finite or infinite universe matters to these conclusions although it may not matter to you specifically.

Your appeals to our scientific understanding of emergence and brain death (regarding consciousness) are on que as predicted. Yes it seems absurd when you're looking it at from your ontology. And let it remain that way. I'm not here to convince anyone. Just wanted to share and get some feedback.

I'm not familiar with lucretius. Any books in particular?

Thanks, but it is quite relevant, I think. Humor is the more important bit.

I find that my best thoughts come when someone reduces my ideas to absurdity. It forces me to be clear.

If something matters to no specific person, then it matters to no one. I really don't care about how my big toe or the universe feels about this, since I have no access. I couldn't even begin to know what I should do for them.

I assume you also have no access, no understanding and no business there.

I'm here to offer feedback and make you laugh and hope you (the general you and the specific you) will do the same.

The one in the footnote of my post. The following is a link to a book, with translation in a prose form, which many find easier to read:

Nature-of-Things-Lucretius

It is also available online in the original form of a Poem, considered one of the best classical Latin poems. Philosophy as Poetry doesn't get any better. The added bonus is that it should broaden your historical perspective of Man's search for meaning and self and place in the universe.

gutenberg.org/files/

This is brilliant. Thanks.

Here's an excerpt from The Infinity of the Universe:

They thus at last, after attempting all
The kinds of motion and conjoining, come
Into those great arrangements out of which
This sum of things established is create,
By which, moreover, through the mighty years,
It is preserved, when once it has been thrown
Into the proper motions, bringing to pass
That ever the streams refresh the greedy main
With river-waves abounding, and that earth,
Lapped in warm exhalations of the sun,
Renews her broods, and that the lusty race
Of breathing creatures bears and blooms, and that
The gliding fires of ether are alive—
What still the primal germs nowise could do,
Unless from out the infinite of space
Could come supply of matter, whence in season
They're wont whatever losses to repair.
For as the nature of breathing creatures wastes,
Losing its body, when deprived of food:
So all things have to be dissolved as soon
As matter, diverted by what means soever
From off its course, shall fail to be on hand.

From the Folly of the Fear of Death:

When once the self-succession of our sense
Has been asunder broken. And now and here,
Little enough we're busied with the selves
We were aforetime, nor, concerning them,
Suffer a sore distress. For shouldst thou gaze
Backwards across all yesterdays of time
The immeasurable, thinking how manifold
The motions of matter are, then couldst thou well
Credit this too: often these very seeds
(From which we are to-day) of old were set
In the same order as they are to-day—
Yet this we can't to consciousness recall
Through the remembering mind. For there hath been
An interposed pause of life, and wide
Have all the motions wandered everywhere
From these our senses. For if woe and ail
Perchance are toward, then the man to whom
The bane can happen must himself be there
At that same time. But death precludeth this,
Forbidding life to him on whom might crowd
Such irk and care; and granted 'tis to know:
Nothing for us there is to dread in death,
No wretchedness for him who is no more,
The same estate as if ne'er born before,
When death immortal hath ta'en the mortal life.

I'm sure this thread is very shallow deep.

I'm sure this contribution is boring interesting.

There's poetry. There's philosophy.

And then there's this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7aWla3cwNg

Analytical logic poetry is math.

So far, poetic over-use of the word like hasn't resulted in being mistaken for, like, a teenager; this is prose.

What's the evidence about debating with prejudice?

Everything is poetry,
To the mind of poet,
The truth is all around,
And they think that they know it.

But classification is thorny,
And spank is being corny,
Just like everything is sexy
To the mind of the horny

The seeker will find,
And keep seeking on and on,
Everything's a shoehorn
And the shoehorn's never wrong

Anything can be modeled with poop except imaginary poop.

A baseball bat vs poetry vs philosophy as a way of expressing truth.

Also, bejesus, Tooth.

At least try to rhyme.

Something about youth.

And time.

And a creepy mime.

Meter got nothing on me, so I will give no apology.

I think a lot of artists are true feelers and not thinkers, and are able to completely turn off (if they even have) their analytical, critical mind while creating their art. Some artists may be more aware of the analytical process than others, but some great ones were basically idiots in their daily life. Deniro is an example.

OP - for a nice discussion on this, check out Hesse's Narcissus and Goldmund.