What happens after the universe ends? Nothingness? An identical

Do you remember the time before you were born ?
Same thing. Time is a human concept. What happens then isn't an understandable concept for most of us; we can only try to theorize.

Short answer : Fuck if we know, and we won't be there to see it anyway.

>>8838602
>most of us
Who would be the exception here? The Pope of Rome? Queen of England?
Obviously understanding the universe may forever be out of our grasp of understanding for reasons of time and scale. It may not even be important.

>>8838712
Time isn't a human construct, you fuckwit. It's simply a rate of change.

>>8838761
Rate of change is a human construct.

>>8838602
According to quantum tunneling an identical universe.

>>8838602
Gravity will probably pull everything together in like some hundred billion years into what was the beginning of time (13,7 billion years ago). It will then be too hot into that point and another big bang will occur, but bigger than our big bang. Then it will take another 500 / 1000 billion years for the next one.

It's strange how despite everything, we have fundamental laws.

We'll never really know how it's all began, or how it's will all end. How can life start if there was no beginning at all?

>>8838602
the universe doesn't end. you get expansion forever in a heat dead universe unit trillions of years from now the last black hole evaporates.
>>8839008
you're an idiot
>>8839027
there is insufficient mass/gravity to reverse the expansion. Big crunch can't happen.

>>8838602
We turn into mushrooms and we get ate by hoomans

>>8839276
>you're an idiot
No you

Everything is a human construct
Change is a human construct
Rate is a human construct

Rocks don't know about changes and rates, and neither do fishes or trees. Arguing that "rate of chgange" is some sort of universal rule that applies to everything is irrelevant because you're always using terms humans defined.

>>8839284
>Everything is a human construct
Mate if that were the case, physics shouldn't have existed before 1745

>>8839287
physics, like science, is a human construct. you just don't know what "being a human construct" means, so stop saying it

>>8839284
>Rocks don't know about changes and rates
who cares what rocks know about?
Even if humans were all dead stars would still form from collapsing nebular gas clouds, ignite in thermonuclear/gravitational equilibrium, convert hydrogen into helium, and ultimately die. Things "change" at "rates" naturally without respect to "human" knowledge.

the best you can say is that we came up with words to label things we observed happening.

you're still an idiot.

>>8839290
Dude, I know what a human construct is, you don't, physics wasn't invented, it was discovered it's not a human construct

>>8839293
>science is not invented but discovered
maybe you just don't know what science is then?
science is literally "I made these models and we can't prove they fail so let's use them"

>>8839287
I know it's hard to understand what I'm saying but basically, everything we know we know in terms of knowing other things. We create a self-sustaining network of concepts and then we communicate using those concepts. But nature doesn't give a damn about our concepts. For all we know we may be hopelessly wrong about everything.

>>8839298
Holy shit I didn't say science I said physics, physics is a branch of science, which science is a human construct based on the discoveries of the many parts of science, physics isn't a human construct it's a human discovery that has been placed in the human construct of science

>>8839303
I say science because it's more general
let me be more specific then. physics is literally "I made these models and we can't prove they fail so let's use them"

unless by "physics" you mean "hidden laws of the universe we can grasp" in which case good fucking luck arguing anything

>>8839306
That's what physics is, a body of laws to govern the universe

>>8839311
you're terribly wrong. try to prove what you believe physics to be, and if you're careful enough, you'll quickly realize it's ridiculous and hopeless

in general, trying to prove anything about the universe is ridiculous and hopeless. that's not what science is about.

>>8839279
aaaaahhhh!! :0

If the universe does repeat it self after its ending and it is identical to its prior, what does that mean about us? Would exist infinitely without knowing about our past lives? Would we live the exact same lives as we did in the past (meaning our lives are predestined)?