>>11940020why would you assume time is infinite? From our current models, we can predict the first approximately 100 billion years of the universe (87ish billion years from now). even if time itself is infinite, most of the theories we currently understand point that the universe will either reach absolute zero (no more energy in the universe AKA big freeze scenario. For laymen, heat death and a big freeze are pretty much the same. they're related but not the same. I'm going to assume you know the difference, or are intelligent enough to research it and understand why), that space will keep expanding and eventually all matter will be reduced to only particles (big rip scenario), or that the universe will crunch back into a singularity that we think the universe was at "before" the big bang (the phrase "before the big bang" makes little scientific sense, but intuitively most will understand what I mean). Even if time itself is infinite, matter will either lose all of its energy or become too far apart for complex objects to form. The only scenarios in which we could assume time is infinite is a big bounce scenario (essentially the big crunch scenario but instead of the universe ending at that point, once everything is back into a singularity it would explode back out). I've had a few too many drinks so I might be rambling, but the point is, even if time itself is infinite, the matter itself that occupies our spatial dimensions will not be able to support the existence of any information processing, which life is.. Time could be infinite, but according to all models of the "end" of the universe as we know it, no one will be around to observe it. This is all based on current understanding of the shape of the universe and dark energy, which isn't much.
