There is heavy proof that it exists as more than a theory and to deny it is to deny the truth within yourself that you have experienced the same as any other. You can sit there with faulty reasoning; as evidenced; but it does not change the truth.
It is mathematically impossible for the physical universe to ever repeat itself, even once throughout an infinity of time.
Then your math is faulty.
Then show me the fault, otherwise your reasoning is faulty.
Why when you should be having that question answered without my outward response. But, for shits and giggles: in the long-term of long-terms of recycled matter and old matter made new and new spirit matter condensed again to physical matter made manifest, we’re carried along the lines of eternities past and future, like leylines and the random factor is sentient, which makes it a very large likelihood that this little story repeats itself, for how rare to our own lifespan compared to the larger scale, still far too often for some things liking. And, the proof is there in the metaconscious mind to support it along with the seemingly inadequate backing of logical thinking as evidenced here by myself. Entirely reasonable.
So you don’t have any objection to the actual math. You merely “feel” that the math should show something different?
I just gave you my objection backed up by solid logic and you have nothing to combat it with except ‘ad homs’. Should I report you? It’s a pity that I’m not as petty as others. A petty pity that I feel no pity.
Oh, I’m sorry. So you thought that was “solid logic”. Well, let’s see…
Not that such makes a sensible predicate, but…
“a very large likelihood”? Is that your premise or your conclusion?
Could you show us the statistics on that? Probability is a matter of number of opportunities versus trials.
Obviously you have no such data, so exactly what is the “solid logic” that brought you to such a priori declaration?
So, because we are small? 
Oh.
Well…
As I said,
So your “inadequate backing of logical thinking” is a part of your evidence that the universe repeats itself?
I guess I am just missing the “solid” part.
… well, and the “logic” part.
But the rest, I think I understand.
This sounds very much like the Everett Many Worlds Hypothesis
Yes, it does, but I think he was referring to the Quantum Physics probable future worlds said to all simultaneously “exist” merely because amidst the ignorance of the precise present, there is some possibility of each varied future. That is a different kind of thing and ontological nonsense.
I do not see any fundamental difference here as you are both referencing quantum improbability so why is his ontological nonsense but not yours
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.