Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Does this mean we have always existed for as long as the universe has existed and does it also mean there is a multiverse

No, I am not talking “quantum” anything. In consideration of the infinities involved, there are an infinity of "you"s and "me"s. This is an issue of there being a 3D physical universe that is infinite in all directions.

Imagine that you are inside a block of space. An instrument measures literally every single yoctometer of that space (10^-24) and records it’s values. That would be an extremely large amount of information, but a finite amount.

Then realize that the universe has an infinity of those blocks with varied states. And it also has an infinity of blocks that has the exact same finite state as the one describing you at any one instant in time.

3D infinity is larger than you think.

We have always existed and always will … somewhere in the infinite universe.

QP’s “multiverse” is merely a mind game, nothing real.

Whether the Universe is infinite or not is not actually known but if not then it cannot contain an infinity of blocks no matter how small they were
That would be an incredibly large number but still a finite one. I am also very sceptical of the notion of an infinite number of mes in the universe
With no evidence for this it is more ontolological than empirical

It is certainly the conclusion of logical evidence, not empirical evidence.

So is it possible then that it could be logically true but empirically false

Mistakes can be made either way. If the logic is flawless, it’s conclusion will always be exactly true to reality. If the empirical evidence is not misinterpreted or presumptuous and it’s inherent logic is also flawless, then it’s conclusion will also be true to reality. False conclusions in the past have always been merely mistakes in the processes.

As far as I can tell, logic demands an infinite physical universe. There can be no empirical evidence concerning an infinite universe either for or against. All inferences concerning a Big Bang and expanding universe have been shown to be weak and presumptuous, most likely religiously inspired.

There’s such a thing as “logical evidence”. Can you be more stupid than that? A “logical evidence” that proves that “the universe” is “infinite”. One meaningless word after another.
It is not important to understand your words. It’s sufficient that you pretend that you understand them.

Actually, according to you, nothing is known and nothing can ever be known about the universe for the simple reason that the universe transcends the limit of our knowledge – our personal experience.
That is if you’re a scientist. If you’re a philosopher, however, you somehow gain the access to the unknown.

It’s too difficult to accept the simple fact that any sequence of words that has no reference to something we have previously experienced is quite simply meaningless.
There can be no reference to the unknown, to the infinite, to the universe, to the beyond . . .

If you want to say that somethiing has no end, you must already know what it means for that something to have an end.
What does it mean for the universe to have an end?
How does that manifest?

Proofs and syllogisms are logical while evidence is scientific or empirical

There is no such thing as logical evidence

I have no idea if the Universe is infinite or not but if it isnt then its end or edge [ assuming such a thing actually exists ]
cannot currently be determined as it is expanding beyond light speed

You are amazingly wrong about that.

Can you show me where I am amazingly wrong for simply asserting it is not good enough
Evidence must be physical and real and not just an abstract concept which is all logic is

Science is not capable of answering philosophic questions like “what is reality?” or “what is nature?” or “what is physics?” and many other philosophic questions that have not to do with empirical evidence.

**

Then you will immediately get the old blame: “You are a subjectivist”. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.

Realize that computers know only logic, no empirical anything. Every time a computer is used by science, logic is being used. Every time mathematics is used, logic is used. For example:

One proposes that if random noise is added to an equal amount of random noise, the result will be merely the same degree of noise as the original. In order to test the hypothesis, a computer is used to create two arrays of random numbers. The arrays are then thoroughly examined for statistic variations and pattern. Then the arrays are added. The result is also examined. The computer repeats the process 10,000 times. If the results show that the degree of randomness did not vary between the original arrays and the resultant arrays, it can be concluded that the hypothesis was right.

That is an entirely, 100% logic process. Yet is yields evidence concerning physical reality.

Every time anyone measures anything and compares it with anything, it is only logic that reveals the “evidence”. Data without logic is entirely meaningless. And at times, pure logic, with no physical demonstration, is sufficient evidence.

The truth is that without logic, there is no “evidence” of any kind at all.

Logic is merely the consistency of thought and language.

Yup. Yep.

Utterly absurd, as wrong as that is.

A computer works with physical electrons. Bits hitting slots aren’t any less empirical than a rock to the head.

As a computer engineer you would also be aware that bits tend to fall, as is the engineering term, from time to time. Thats how many bugs occur. All that happens inside of computers, because they are entirely physical, and engineered in empirical processes. A computer is just a stacker of empirically verified events.

Why don’t you actually prove me wrong instead of attacking me with insults, little man.

JSS was talking about logic in the sense of the software, not about physics in the sense of the hardware.

Yes, like considering thought but not accounting for the brain.
It just doesnt work like that. Metaphysics is a subset of existence, but some think that because we have a word “existence”, existence is a subset of metaphysics.

Logic is the consistency in thought and language. It has nothing to do with empiricism. But empiricism, or any effort to be rational, cannot occur without such consistencies.

Consistencies in physical behaviors is what causes the universe to be what it is, causes the universe to exist. Thus it isn’t wrong to claim that consistency created the physical universe. And that consistency is the “Logic of the physical”, the “one underlying principle” (aka “God”).