If eternalism is true, does that mean the universe has already ended?

It has always ended then

File: 0.png (440KB, 645x1260px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 645x1260px

>>1381215
If eternalism is true, does that means my consciousness will never go away and I will continuously experience my (awful) life over and over away?

>>1381266
*again

Fuck

is pepe the eternal meme?

This thread gets it. The end of the universe will end in one supper massive black hole, which sucks in literally all light and matter into one singular point for a massive amount of time.

Eventually (shits going down inside the black hole) everything is spewwed back out again via a big bang. But since the materials for the big bang where those of the last universe there is nothing "new" in this universe, just a reiteration of matter and events.

To add to this iteration of matter is not infinate maing the exact same thing has happened an infinate amount of times.

This is literal hell we are living in, who knows how many times I have typed out this exact post in this exact relevant time for our current universe on this exact website.

I fervently believe our goal is the destruction (I mean total utter destruction) of at least one atom which will shift everything into the unknown from the next universe. Something which we evidently have not achieved in any interation of the universes.

>>1381313
>our goal is the destruction (I mean total utter destruction) of at least one atom

why not create one instead?

>>1381313
>The end of the universe will end in one supper massive black hole, which sucks in literally all light and matter into one singular point for a massive amount of time.

Impossible at the last ages of the universe matter will ripped down to quarks spread far apart from eachother making gravitation nonexistent and thus no black holes.

>>1381318
Because that will continue the cycle, although with new interations of matter possible. The cycle has been going for an eternity.

Ending the cycle is the goal. Taking out one atom could cause a collapse, much like an eco system.

>>1381325
>Impossible at the last ages of the universe matter will ripped down to quarks spread far apart from eachother making gravitation nonexistent and thus no black holes.

t. Speculation.

At least I made my speculations clear.

>>1381325
This is also besides the point as I should have said. The big bang is just a mechanisim. My logic behind this reasoning is if existence has existed before (it does as I exist) then it's pretty safe to say, just as say as it isn't, to say that it has and will exist again, in some point in 'time'.

Assuming it has and will exist again, just how may times has it existed? For how 'long'? You also then have to assume that the matter of this universe is the same as the next (you don't really, you just expand the time-line (there is no evidence of infinity in our universe, so you cannot exactly assume it exists))

You really cannot refute this idea, except without first proving infinity exists. If infinity exists then there is a possiblity of an infinite number of interations allowing for dynamic universes. Nothing points to this though.