[ExI] Soft Tiplerianism

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/soft_tiplerianism/

This is a summary of my recent arguments on some transhumanist mailing
lists in support of the idea that transhumanism might be, or become, a
suitable alternative to religion. For lack of a better term, I am
using "Soft Tiplerianism" to indicate a general, high level,
conceptual appreciation of some ideas proposed by Fedorov, Teilhard,
Tipler, Kurzweil, Perry and Clarke, without any specific proposal for
their actual implementation.

In The Physics of Immortality, Frank J. Tipler proposed a high level concept:

Future technology may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by
some kind of "copying them to the future"

He also proposed a specific resurrection mechanism based on:

Intelligent beings of a far future epoch close to the gravitational
collapse of the universe (the so called Big Crunch) may develop the
capability to steer the collapse along a specific mode (Taub collapse)
with unlimited subjective time, energy, and computational power
available to them before reaching the final singularity. Having done
so, they may wish to restore to consciousness all sentient beings of
the past, perhaps through a "brute force" computational emulation of
the past history of the universe. So after death we may wake up in a
simulated environment with many of the features assigned to the
afterlife world by the major religions. (from my Interview with Frank
J. Tipler of November 2002).

Actually I liked David Deutsch's account of Tipler's vision (described
in his popular book The Fabric of Reality) more than Tipler's own
account. While I found some parts of The Physics of Immortality *very*
interesting, I was not impressed with the overall conceptual clarity
and felt that he was stretching some interesting analogies far too
much.

Tipler's mechanism for resurrection is often criticized on the basis
of its cosmological assumptions, that are not supported by current
observations. Even if this is the case (that is, even if the Universe
"left to itself" would not spontaneously evolve an Omega Point ´like
cosmology), Tipler thinks that we may be able to do something about
it: "the expansion of life to engulf the universe is exactly what is
required to cancel the positive cosmological constant" (reference
above). This "fix what you don't like" is, in my opinion, a very
transhumanist attitude and is supported by Ray Kurzweil's last
sentence in The Age of Spiritual Machines: "So will the Universe end
in a big crunch, or in an infinite expansion of dead stars, or in some
other manner? In my view, the primary issue is not the mass of the
Universe, or the possible existence of antigravity, or of Einstein's
so-called cosmological constant. Rather, the fate of the Universe is a
decision yet to be made, one which we will intelligently consider when
the time is right".

We should not take nature (lower case n intended) as an absolute that
cannot be modified or as something "superior" that must be revered,
but rather as a plastic material that can be shaped and modified once
we develop the capability to do so. Which is, in my opinion, what
transhumanism is all about. Past generations were used to considering
human biology, with all its comic or tragic accidents such as body
fat, unchosen gender, stupidity, aging and mortality, as an absolute.
We are beginning to see that, after all, our bodies and minds are just
machines that can be fixed, improved and redesigned by engineering
once we develop the needed knowledge and tools. I am just proposing to
apply the same concept to cosmology and the fabric of reality, that's
all (!). Of course. I do not have the faintest idea of whether, when
and how megascale cosmic engineering may be an actual possibility. But
I do not think we know enough of the detailed machinery of reality to
rule out this vision, and find some pleasure and motivation in
allowing myself to contemplate it.

It is worth noting that also Tipler's predecessor in using the term
"Omega Point", Pierre Teilhard de Cardin, has been often criticized
(even by Tipler himself!) for not getting some scientific facts right.
But this is really like dismissing Leonardo as a crank because his
aircraft sketches wouldn't fly, which is just stupid. Leonardo was a
genius who got the *concepts* right, and later engineers equipped with
more detailed knowledge have realized his visions.

While I find speculations on megascale cosmological engineering in the
very far future interesting, I don't think we can take too seriously
any current speculations on the capabilities and motivations of
persons (in an extended meaning of "person" of course) millions of
years more advanced than ourselves. So, I am quite agnostic on the
specific resurrection mechanism proposed by Tipler. I also think that,
perhaps, we may find some better ways to resurrect the dead much
before the end of the universe, regardless of a Big Crunch that may or
may not take place, like the fictional example in Arthur C. Clarke and
Stephen Baxter's novel The Light of Other Days. In Clarke-Baxter
"theory" micro wormholes naturally embedded with huge density in the
fabric of spacetime permit looking back in time and downloading a copy
of a person's mind, that can then be "uploaded to the future". Many
other thinkers and writers, including Nikolai Fedorov and Mike Perry,
have dared contemplating resurrection. See also the website of the
Society for Universal Immortalism.

While I cannot claim any knowledge of future "super technologies", I
do relate deeply to Tipler's high level concept that future technology
may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of
"copying them to the future"and, in the spirit of "There are more
things in Heaven and Earth...", allow myself to contemplate such
possibilities. There may be a point where consciousness becomes a
important factor in the destiny of the universe, where conscious
beings develop the capability to choose and build the universe they
*want* to inhabit, and invite the dead of past ages to join the party
by copying them to the future. I am using "Soft Tiplerianism" to
indicate this soft rationalist, high level and not detailed concept
that will, I hope, be detailed and realized by future scientists and
engineers.

Since these are very long term visions, I do not put them in the
realistic/programmatic world. What I do put in the
realistic/programmatic world, in a "thing big, act small" sense, is
taking the first small steps toward the advancement of our species on
this cosmic path, while at the same time trying to ensure our
immediate survival. The future can be magic and beautiful, and we want
to be there to see it happen. One of the first small steps that should
be taken, in my opinion, is making transhumanism more appealing to
more people in a more immediate way. Therefore, I am proposing to
include "Soft Tiplerianism", as defined here as "Future technology may
be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of copying
them to the future", in the transhumanist memetic package. I am
persuaded that this could facilitate outreaching beyond the original
transhuamanist subculture(s), give many more people hope and a
sparkling vision of a better future, and motivate them to roll up
their sleeves and try to contribute to realizing such vision.

I am *only* arguing for the hypothetical feasibility, in principle, of
these concepts, and my argument is based on the fact that they do not
contradict the laws of physics as they are presently understood. I
never said, do not want to say, and do not think that these
possibility are "absolutely certain" or "guaranteed", just that they
are a possible outcome of the development of our species. So I am not
at all certain that our descendants will be able to, or be willing to,
upload me to the future, but the simple possibility of this option is
good enough (for me) as a replacement of religion. The main point of
my proposal is an explicit acknowledgment that the current scientific
thinking, and some reasonable extrapolations from today's engineering,
*may* provide *some degree of* hope, grounded in technology and
sciences, in some of the promises of traditional religions. Without,
of course, the irrational faith, rigid dogmatism and intolerance that
have plagued traditional religions.