Western thought, Christianity, Judaism, Islam-- are some of the only linear thought religions in regard to time and they are the youngest religions in the grand scheme... Hinduism, Jainism, Native American, Austrailian Aborigines, African religions, etc. all believe in a cyclic universe. The very idea of reincarnation is based on recycling souls. So, IF religion was true-- I'd be more apt to believe older religions. Of course I'd have to believe in a religion first...just sayin'

The big crunch is impossible as far as we have come to know about the nature of our universe. Heat death and infinite expansion are more likely. The only way the big crunch is possible is if the average gravitational density of all matter and energy at some point will outweigh the constant, rapid expansion. So far, the expansion of the universe is exponentially increasing and it is faster than light in some areas of deep space where there is no matter for a floppity-zillion light years.
An alternative to the big crunch is if somehow ALL matter - in the future form of singularities - can blend together into an infinitesimal space-time singularity that is unstable and erupts into another big bang: basically spawning a whole new universe within our old universe's unstable space-time fabric. Each time, kind of like recycling paper, there might be a loss of matter and energy that was too far outside the reach of this amalgam of matter.
In both cases - simply matter or both space-time and matter - would require some unknown force to bring all the mass in the universe together in the face of a hyperbolic space-time expansion that outruns even the speed of light. Perhaps future civilizations might develop technology capable of multiple artificial kugelblitz which can theoretically reverse space-time expansion by acting like a gravitational singularity. Enough of those and you might just be able to "rope in" the expanding space-time fabric like that scene where Spiderman tries to stop the boat from splitting by using a bunch of web and pulling on it with all his might.
More than likely, it's just a depressing end to our one-time universe floppity gillions of years from now as the last star flickers out of existence.
That's all I have to say about that.

Pretty sure this possibility, at least in the literal sense, has been ruled out under current cosmology. IE, it looks like there will be no "Big Crunch." That being said, there are models that say there are, have been, and will be an infinite number of universes. If that's the case, then yes, this may have all played out an infinite number of times and will play out an infinite number of times. I find it more incomprehesible than depressing.

It’s hard to say what the universe does on a cosmic scale. I guess we’ll see.

Why is it that we expect to relive anything? "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed...merely transformed from one state to another". Your are a bottle of energy, transfixed and dependent on the biomechanical engine of your body. Your spirit, sense of self, is singularly unique...but there are 7 billion others bottles.

There is no over and over. There is transformation...the actions of your life intersecting with the lives of other people...like a pebble skipping across the water...and creating ripples.

More like a spiral than an endless loop. Then again, there's also the Many Worlds theory too.

If I were recreated in a perfect simulation of my current environment, complete with my memories and mental states, my clone would likely behave just like me in every way. But it's still not me. Similarity, no matter how exact, has no bearing on me here and now. I see a cycle of big bangs and crunches to be no different. But, I don't really buy into continuous personal identity from moment to moment, either, so it's especially easy to distance myself from past and future cosmic doppelgangers.

A very interesting idea. But like reincarnation, what difference would it make. If we go around again but can't remember this trip, is it really us?

We don't know.

No. That is either a pipe=dream or a nightmare, depending on how you imagine it.

Since by the time I'd be me again I wouldn't remember past me, I really can't see such a thing bothering me then, so I don't find it bothersome to me now.

I should hope not... do not want to Cheeto winning an election again
Joking aside, nope I do not like or think is possible..and is very depressing to me

The Nietzschean idea of 'eternal return or eternal recurrence' owes it origin to eastern philosophy. What do we mean by eternity? Do we mean unimaginable 'period of time' where there is no beginning and no ending? Is time a man made concept which owes it origins to seasonal variation and the movement of stars and planets? Without motion would there be any notion of time?

Anything is possible when it comes to theory over my head...lol. that's just to far away for me to think about.

I don't like it and doubt it will happen, I'm more of an entropy fan... I sure hope not and yes it is depressing as hell. If we knew in the next iteration what we know now and could make changes I'd be ok with it.

I think it is a stretch to call philosophers scientists.

with infinite space, there are infinite possibilities.

I will never be me again as I am right now. Never was before either as I am right now. I may be something else, somewhere else, in another time and era.

Groundhog days Universe. haha. I prefer the more optimistic big bounce explanation where time resets at the end of every big crunch.

I really hope not. "Groundhog Day" was a decent movie but, I don't want to live it.

The universe isn't expanding, it's moving, from where we observe from it looks like it's expanding. On a different note did you know Einstein married 2 of his cousins?

A common belief today is that you are nothing but a physical body and that your brain generates your field of consciousness—your subjective experience, your Mind. This is just plain absurd. Even though there is no hard evidence for this, many of you eat it up and believe it without question simply because this view of reality has been told to you over and over again from the moment you were born. Did you know that your scientists have absolutely no idea how your Mind can exist? They cannot account for your subjectivity. They cannot account for your inner world. They cannot account for your Mind. Your subjectivity is what you are most familiar with; it’s what it means to be you. It’s your entire field of experience, yet your scientists have no clue how it’s possible, and they just throw out the lie that it’s somehow a product of your brain even though they cannot tell you how.

Odds are you probably didn’t know this was such a huge problem for science. That’s because this doesn’t get broadcast very often. It gets blocked out and swept away. The fallacies are just ignored in the same way that a dogmatic religious person ignores the insanity of their beliefs. Believing that the Mind, which is different from matter, somehow comes from a material brain, is just as illogical as saying that a sky god created the universe in seven days. Scientists try to defend their view by claiming that brain states correspond to mental states. This is a blatant logical fallacy as correspondence does not imply causation. All this means is that there is a correspondence or interaction between the brain and the mind, but it does NOT logically follow that the brain causes the Mind or that the brain is the Mind. Understand this crucial element: The brain and the Mind interact, but the brain and the Mind are NOT the same thing.

“[The] brain does not produce the mind… to assume that the mind is caused by the brain, due to psycho-physical correlation, is to commit the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.” – Peter Sjöstedt-H, Philosopher

In a nutshell, this means that just because two things correspond to each other, it does not mean that one causes the other to exist or that they are the same thing.