The Egg Theory, Can Science Disprove It?

I recently stumbled across this idea based on a short story by Andy Weir called The Egg. (The Egg) For those who don’t feel like reading the whole story, it basically says that when someone dies they will be reincarnated until they’ve lived every life possible. It also states that we are all one and everyone will eventually become God. While it is a fictional story, it has gained a bit of a following and some people are believing that it could actually explain things such as why we are here, and what is the universe. While there is reason to be skeptical about this, firstly the fact that it is fictional and isn’t based on any visions or beliefs, and the fact that the author himself said he doesn’t believe it to be true (Reddit - Dive into anything).
Still, as someone who worries about something being true is it is not proven false, I still have that worry of what if it is true. I know I’ve talked before on here about reincarnation, but this seems even worse than the reincarnation suggested based on past life memories as I’d have to live out every single life throughout history. Is there any laws or principles in science that prove that the Egg Theory cannot be possible?

So far as I can tell from your summary, it is purely philosophical, and thus science can say absolutely nothing about it beyond that it is not scientific–the same way that science can’t weigh in about what deity is in charge of the weather.


Keep in mind that if someone makes a claim, it’s up to them to provide evidence for it – not up to everyone else to try to “disprove” it. That would get exhausting! People make all kinds of crazy claims, and as you said, the author of this idea doesn’t even believe it. It can be fun to think about things that could be true. When it comes to Christian faith, we believe based on what we have seen and experienced, but understand that we can’t scientifically prove it to anyone, and that’s okay.


This may apply:

Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.


The meaning of life is beyond science. Science can identify the workings but the meaning of life is not empirical.

On this site you will get varying views of the meaning of life from absolutely no meaning to it being a rite of passage to Heaven (or Hell). You throw your hat into which ever you are most comfortable with. Reincarnation is almost impossible to prove or disprove but as a principle it does not sit well with what we see around us. Death would seem to be final and the existence of the soul to continue is a theological hot potato. We would like to think that there is another “emanation” to quote Voyager, but ultimately the existence of anything beyond the grave is theological at best and not within the view of science.


I dont mean to nitpick, however, can i ask you to clarify the above quoted statement?

What have Christians seen that gives them any faith?

Isnt faith the idea that we belive but have not seen?

Didnt Christ say to doubting Thomas, “blessed are those who have not seen but have believed”?

and yet ironically enough, in the real world the fastest way to do a job is to do it the right way first time around :crazy_face:

Perhaps my use of “seen” here is a little redundant with “experienced,” because they are similar. I don’t mean it in the sense of physically seeing God, but I do see his creation and believe that it didn’t just come about by accident. I also see people following Jesus and bearing good fruit in their lives and the lives of those around them – to me that helps point me to Jesus even if I never see him. In that sense, faith doesn’t mean that someone tells me to believe something and I do it so they’ll like me, or I just mentally assent to it because I’m afraid – I believe because many things in the world around me make sense in light of it.


Whereas on the web, the fastest way to information is to post wrong info and and wait for the corrections.


The concept may be partially inspired by popular versions of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, there are serious problems with the popular version, besides the fact that is one of several interpretations of quantum uncertainty and scientifically untestable.

In quantum mechanics, there are many events that we can say “either this or that happens, with x probability”. The many worlds interpretation claims that, in every quantum event, both outcomes occur, producing two parallel universes differing in that quantum outcome.

However, the popular version jumps from that to claiming that “therefore, all possible universes exist.” What is “possible”? Anything that I can imagine is the most popular definition by advocates. But that is wrong. This only generates the set of all universes that differ from each other in the outcome of quantum events. The laws of nature are still the same in all of them. Thus, it does not avoid the anthropic principle question of why does our universe (or set of universes) have natural laws suitable for our existence?

Also, there is a hidden deterministic and reductionist assumption. The popular many-worlds versions tend to assume that changing outcomes of quantum events is enough to produce all the alternative histories that they want. But is the difference between those actually reducible to quantum fluctuations?


Brandolini was an optimist.

Besides which, Frederick Bastiat beat him to it:

“We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete, we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations.”


I put this on a level below the idea that only one electron exists and has just been moving forward and backwards in time so it appears that there is a vast multitude of electrons.


Unless the basic constants of nature were subject to some sort of quantum fluctuation.

1 Like

I like Hanlon’s razor a lot too:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

1 Like

I have to remind myself of that every now and then when idiots damage some of my conservation work.


Interesting thought. In any case it would be cool if the fundamental reality of the universe (or plural of) is information, as someone has suggested that QM might be hinting. The mind of God just might be a good source.

1 Like

The idea came to me while listening to a panel discussion among a couple of cosmologists along with (IIRC) a philosopher and a couple of others, moderated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

1 Like

As soon as the supernatural comes into play, science can’t really prove or disprove it. But science can be used to prove or disprove some things.

For example if I said a god reincarnated me every time I’ve died and I have some memories of it then they could fact check the claims I made. If I said I was a young boy in the 1500s who came to America in a ship they could quiz me about what the ship looked like, what clothes I was wearing and so on. If I gave wrong descriptions they could prove those were wrong. They could beyond reasonable doubt that since my details don’t line up that it’s probably not true. But then again, people from 9-11 who was for sure there have been quizzed and came up way wrong.

I don’t think reincarnation is true but it’s not more or less spectacular than a resurrection.

And that is the advantage you cling to when someone disagrees with you. They must provide indisputable reasoning (And/or proof) to overcome your simple statements.(of fact?)


Science has nothing to say about unfalsifiable claims like this egg theory. The real problem with this is the degree with which you have bend reality to fit it, which is so extreme it renders it meaningless as well as unfalsifiable not only to science but every other measure of evidence and rationality. It is even less helpful or reasonable than the suggestion that the universe was created this morning with all our memories as they are.

We can claim we are all one in some sense already without this egg theory. It is pantheistic which another popular claim people can and have made without such an absurd prop. And I don’t see how it explains why we are here or the universe – I don’t see how these questions are even addressed by it.