Cloudscape

Beyond death there are but three possibilities: either there is nothingness, or there is infinity, or there is something between the two as there is now. The first would mean to become undone; the second would mean to become one with all of existence; the third would mean to be reborn.
In the latter case, whether we are reborn in heaven or in hell or in earth, we would remain much like we are now, that is, limited. Thus we would be reborn over and over again forever, since nothing that is finite can remain the same as it is. If this cycle of reincarnations would last for an infinitely long time, it would also randomly involve an infinite amount of situations and eventually repeat them infinitely many times; if not, then it must end either in nothingness or in infinity, as it could not remain stable otherwise.
This is actually quite a horrifying possibility, since it would mean that we would end up in every possible situation we could imagine, from the most blissful to the most painful, be it in reality or in imagination. Be it through our environment or hallucinations, either how, we would go through every possible experience that could be conceived of. More frightening still, because of this we would also end up being every possible person, from the most honorable to the most cruel. In some future life we might be a murderer, or a rapist or a tyrant. Worst of all, we could do nothing about the fact that everything that would ever happen would happen again, and we could never do anything to avoid it.
As to what came before birth, likewise, there are again the same three possibilities. But here the possibility of infinity and of nothingness become harder to defend; after all, both nothingness and infinity are stable. There is nothing that defines them, and therefore no state into which they could evolve; after all, why should it evolve into one state and not another, if the starting points are identical? If we came from nothing, or came from infinity, then we would have remained either nothing or infinite.
Nothing can simply pass from nonexistence into existence; for nonexistence has no configuration whatsoever, and so cannot change into another specific configuration such as that of a human body. This would be a complete paradox: if we came from nothing at all, then there would be nothing that would determine what we would become. There would be no reason why we should be ourselves rather than someone else, and therefore who we are would be acausal. There cannot have been a beginning, neither of the universe nor of our lives within them, because something would have caused that beginning, as well; otherwise, it would just be without any reason at all.
Seen purely from our own viewpoints, how could our own consciousness one moment have not existed and then suddenly have been bound to a specified body? Since my consciousness was bound to a particular body means that it must have been defined in a particular way, but how is this possible if it had not existed before?
If we suppose that everything has a cause, then this is completely impossible; thus, our own consciousness must always have existed. This may or may not mean that if this is so, it will also always exist; after all, if our consciousness had existed for an infinitely long time, then from a purely statistical viewpoint it would appear impossible to stop existing. This is not something I say because I want to believe this, for I believe the possibility of eternal repetition is far more terrifying than that of eternal nothingness. The possibility of infinity is the only that offers some comfort, as infinity could only remain stable through infinite love.
That our consciousness never had a sudden beginning is not as far-fetched as it seems: after all, how can we place a line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Are not some of our own perceptions even now only partly conscious, that is, subconscious, and some to so little extent that we never realize they are there at all?
At what point does a fetus become conscious in the womb? Or did we already have some more fundamental consciousness still before that? Can we pinpoint an exact moment at which it becomes conscious, before which there was no consciousness at all and after which all of a sudden there was consciousness? And if so, where did the consciousness suddenly come from? Out of the blue, from nowhere at all? Or does consciousness arise gradually?
Perhaps the only solution to this question is that our consciousness has always existed; in that case, there are but two possibilities: the first is that what we are now is just another of an infinite series of reincarnations, which over time will go through every possible situation and eventually repeat themselves.
The second possibility is that our consciousness has grown for an infinitely long time. Before we were born, before our consciousness was bound to the complex system of our brain, perhaps our consciousness was bound to simpler systems. Perhaps if one would go back in time and if somehow one could observe what one's consciousness had once been, one would find that it would always halve, and halve again and over and over forever as one would go further in time; perhaps once, before we were conscious of our own bodies, we were conscious on lower levels. However, since every level of consciousness could be halved, our consciousness would have been lower and lower in the past but never have reached zero; however, it would have approached zero as a limit. That is, it would have been infinitesimal in the past; as every level of consciousness would further be halved without quite reaching zero, it could have existed for an infinitely long time. If this is true, we don't need to deal with the inexplicability of consciousness that arose from nothing to become something.
Perhaps consciousness is something that grows from an infinitesimal point to bit by bit spread over the entire infinity of the universe. Put another way, perhaps that of which we are conscious grows until it becomes the entire universe.
To live is a transitive. We are always aware of something. Right now, we are aware of our own bodies and their surroundings, perhaps, earlier, we were conscious of a single atom, and before that of a single particle and so on ad infinitum. Maybe we should not think of consciousness as something that arises from matter, but rather something that merely relies on it: we are aware of matter, and as such we could not be aware without matter as there would be nothing to be aware of; but that does not mean per se that matter causes consciousness.
If our consciousness has grown from a infinitely close to nothing over an infinitely long time, it is reasonable to assume that it will continue to grow towards infinity, though possibly never fully reaching it. In fact, relative to future, infinite levels of consciousness, our current level of consciousness would then still be infinitesimal. This is merely a question of frame of reference.
I would like to emphasize that this is merely a hypothesis, and not my personal belief. Consciousness is probably by far the most mysterious thing in the universe, and since it cannot be observed, we can only hope to understand it through pure logic. But logic, too, can be flawed. I still believe each of the three scenario's (infinity, finity, or nothing) to be possible and favor none of these; but my hopes are that we will, sooner or later, reach infinity. If we do, however, the question still remains if we will do so in a finite amount of time, or if we can only approach it over an infinitely long time.

If the universe is infinitely complex, it must involve infinitely many levels both below the quantum level as above the astronomical level. All of these would have varying degrees of complexity, some of them as high as our own level. Some levels, like our own, would be able to support life. Such level could be called a "habitable level." In habitable levels below the quantum level, time would go much faster from our perspective, while in habitable levels above the cosmic level, time would go much slower from our perspective.
There is no reason why such levels would be impossible; however, if these levels exist at all, it may not be possible to connect with them. In fact, perhaps it is natural to assume that there are habitable levels beside our own just as it is natural to assume that there are habitable planets beside our own. Science has already shown us that we are far from unique; why should our level, then, be unique? Would it not be too much of a coincidence if there were only one level at which life is possible, that of chemistry? In no way we appear to live in the center of the universe; why should this aspect be an exception? Such chauvinism has betrayed us too often before to be closed to this possibility altogether.

Infinite levels of complexity below the quantum level ("subquantum levels") would mean that there are also infinitely diverse systems below it, some of which would be able to sustain higher degrees of complexity than others. Each level below the quantum level would affect the higher levels, but would do so in such chaotic ways that their effect would appear to be random.
We might never be able to observe those worlds, but although the Planck length may be the smallest size that we can observe, and therefore the smallest size that matters to us, that does not mean that there could not exist anything smaller; we simply can never connect to whatever exists at such level, at least so it seems for now.
Infinite levels of complexity above the cosmic level ("supercosmic levels") would mean the same thing. In an infinitely complex Universe (with capital U, referring to all of existence) there could be forces of infinite speed, although they might not occur except at an infinitesimal frequency; this could, for instance, bridge the distances between separate universes (which would in turn be but particles!) so that they could interact at faster-than-light speed. This would not have to be necessary for there to other levels above the cosmic level, however; suppose that nothing goes faster than light (which would, however, be very unlikely if the universe is indeed infinite in complexity), then this would merely make the interactions in supercosmic levels much slower; they could still, in effect, take place, even if there are no other forces than the ones we know already.
Since our universe expands so rapidly, it could not take part in any interactions because it would dissolve before it could do so. However, if again we assume that the Universe (with capital U) is infinite, there must be infinitely other universes (small u), and some would have density parameters which would make them stable for a long term. Most subatomic particles are very unstable, lasting only a fraction of a second; but the few that are stable are enough to form a viable level.
There are two ways in which stable universes might interact with one another: one is through forces which to us are still unknown. In that case, it is possible that our own universe has a charge we are not aware of; after all, since it does not manifest to ourselves, we cannot detect it. Indeed, if there are habitable subquantum levels, then the hypothetical inhabitants of an electron who have come to discover that they live on an electron might think it to be neutral, not seeing that there are particles beyond their own and calling their particle "the universe."
The other possibility is that stable universes interact with one another through the same forces present in our own universe. Some universes might be electromagnetically charged; even if none have a very great charge, then still, either how every universe is likely charged to some extent, even if that charge comprises only a few elementary charges. Though this is small on our level, this may have an entirely different meaning at supercosmic level. Given enough time, even the slightest force, no matter how small, will have an affect. The only thing that can prevent this is that it would be countered by another force, but those would not or barely occur in the space between universes.
Just how long this would take does not matter at all, as time is relative; on supercosmic levels, a billion years might be a very short time, just like a femtosecond is a very short time to us. In contrast, on quantum level a femtosecond is a very long time, and most subatomic particles do not survive that long.
The effects of a force depend on time as well as space. This is testified by the gravity that keeps superclusters together; certainly that force is not relevant to us, that is to say, not on our level. Time and space are relative, and what to us is a very long time may be but a very brief instant on supercosmic levels, while what to us are very vast distances may be but very short intervals on those levels.
Thus, regardless in what way or at what speed, if there are universes beyond our own then they will interact. Very slowly to us, they will move to form greater structures which in a higher level might be similar, for instance, to stars on the astronomical level — which will then again form greater levels and so on. If the speed of light is an absolute limit, the only difference this makes is that the greater levels will move slower, but even so, in that frame of reference it is not slow in itself. It must also be noted that, should there be an inhabitable supercosmic level, this slowness would also affect consciousness, so that it would not perceive its world as slow at all.