HOME

WHO WE ARE

About the Society

About UI

FAQ

Membership



BELIEFS

DONATE

JOIN

NEWS

BLOGS

VIDEOS

AUDIO

ARTICLES

BOOKS

DOCUMENTS

YAHOO GROUP

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

By R. Michael Perry, Ph.D.

What is Universal Immortalism?

The belief that someday it will be possible to bring back to life all who have ever died, using material, technological means, coupled with the desire and intention to work toward making this an eventual reality.

How could this be possible?

It becomes possible if (1) certain properties hold about the nature of reality, and (2) one is willing to adopt a certain point of view about the nature of persons and thus of what would constitute a “resurrection.” Various combinations of (1) and (2) will “work”—make resurrection possible—so the task becomes one of deciding which combinations if any seem plausible and reasonable from both a scientific and a philosophical point of view. One proposal that makes the case for resurrection relies, as a version of (2), on the idea of patternism or “soul as information.” Persons in this view are essentially quantum computations—evolving patterns of information at the quantum level. They are instantiated in but not identical to material objects. Information is crucial, and duplications can occur without creating a “different” person. A replica of a person must then count as one possible resurrection of that person. As for (1), the vastness of all reality arguably contains more than any one, finite domain including an entire, finite universe, and in fact exhausts all the possible, finite histories, so that such duplications must occur. Resurrection then is actually unavoidable, though the particular details in each case will depend on circumstances. It is the task of universal immortalists to try to optimize these circumstances and more generally to act so that life can be lived as well as possible for eternity.

Isn't this just science fiction, not science?

Actually, the physical assumptions supporting the possibility of resurrection in the preceding argument—(1) above—are relatively modest and have widespread support among scientists, even if still controversial and not definitively verified. They are basically that in all of reality there is quite a lot happening and it is enough to create duplicate persons along with many other things. How this is managed or influenced becomes the task of Universal Immortalism, not whether it can or does happen or not.

Why not trust in the resurrection promised by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?

Once again, how the resurrection is managed becomes the important consideration, not whether it will occur at all. One can expect resurrection to follow one’s death regardless of one’s beliefs or actions. But we think the best approach to the problem is a scientific one aimed at securing the maximum benefit for all involved.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in religion. Isn't this too much like religion?

Yes it is “like” religion and can be thought of as a religion. But religion can be viewed as simply the deepest response to the most important and meaningful concerns of life. As such it does not necessarily involve belief in the supernatural. So you can be atheist and still be deeply “religious” and it is rewarding to be so—that is the position taken in Universal Immortalism. Indeed we think that true religion requires a break with the supernaturalist ideas of the past.

I believe people in the future will be able to do many amazing things, but surely they won't be able to do this, will they?

Technology came a long way from the first axe to moon landings, the computer, and Dolly the sheep. In the future it will surely advance much, much further. In addition to “designer babies” it should be possible to create fully formed adult humans using mature nanotechnology and other advanced tools. The problem of resurrection would then reduce to that of having an adequate description of the person to be resurrected as a starting point. A tough problem, but we can envision ways of achieving it. Guesswork alone should give rise to some individual of an actual, historical timestream, if you accept the idea of the exhaustive nature of reality as a whole. You take it from there. [See for example here].

Would the person resurrected be the same person as the person who died?

If you accept the patternist view that persons are essentially informational in nature, there is no strong significance attached to particular material constructs or instantiations in which such persons are being realized or “run”. So for instance, a replica of an original, now deceased person would qualify as a resurrection of this same person, though not uniquely so. The possibility of one person becoming several is thus not ruled out, but should not be seen as a major problem. (If, for instance, the many-worlds idea is correct it or something very like it is happening all the time anyway.)

If this will not be possible for a long time, why be concerned about it now?

One good reason is to work for a better way for people to come back after clinical death, to avoid the necessity of a resurrection “from dust” at some remote future time. Otherwise it is worthwhile to be interested in this idea because it gives meaning to life and can inspire efforts to make the world a better place today. It is, in short, a rational substitute for traditional religious beliefs.

What can we do now to make this more likely to happen in the future?

In an absolute sense, it will happen no matter what you do, as we have noted, but we can make it more likely to happen under conditions we would like. Promoting cryonics is one obvious strategy. We think one’s resurrection would be “easier” this way, with less in the way of dislocation and more opportunity to quickly get “up to speed” with the times and take one’s place in society. Among other things, if cryonics is successful for you, you can then join in efforts to bring about the more general resurrection and otherwise carry out good works.

What about bad people. Shouldn't they not be resurrected?

In a sense there are not “bad” people but only “sick” people. People who have intentionally done great harm or at least have evil motives will need more help of a certain sort, but there is reason to hope they can eventually see the error of their ways and convert or accept conversion to “good.”

What about people who do not want to be resurrected, people who want to die and stay dead?

Such people can be viewed as being like children who are so miserable they only want to die. There must be reasons or causes for such a terrible affliction, and future knowledge and technology will hopefully be able to deal with these causes in appropriate ways. So you should get people who would say something like, “before I couldn’t see a reason to go on living, but I certainly do now,” and yet would still be in a reasonable sense the “same” personalities as before—only in a cured or considerably improved state. Perhaps this would be hard—nobody today can prove otherwise—but it is a problem we could work on and, arguably, with future capabilities, have a reasonable chance of solving in a reasonable way.

Why should we do it?

The best motive for anyone’s life is to do those things which best serve enlightened self-interest. Since we hope to be immortal, the scope of enlightened self-interest must expand to the scale of eternity. Doing good to others will serve enlightened self-interest, and this should be more so as life lengthens and capacities improve. A resurrection project properly handled would be a great labor of love and would do much good in the world for others. The beings we benefit should benefit us in return, as they become able and mature, also recognizing this as serving their own enlightened self-interest, so that all will live together happily and harmoniously.

Why don't we just try to stay alive through life extension or cryonics?

This is a too-narrow focus in terms of enlightened self-interest, expanded to the scale of eternity. See above.

Doesn't this make life extension or cryonics unnecessary?

Cryonics and life extension increase the opportunities to do good, and thus serve enlightened self-interest.

What kind of world will people be resurrected into?

A world considerably improved beyond that of today, if all goes well. Aging and now-terminal diseases should be things of the past, and as well as the sort of built-in limitations on intelligence and other talents that now prevail. The opportunities and privileges will be greater in many ways, but there will be great responsibilities too, so dedication and hard work will not lose their value.

What kind of people will do the resurrecting?

Wise, benevolent, loving advanced beings who possess understanding and skills far beyond anything available today, again if all goes well.

Who thought of universal immortalism?

The nineteenth-century Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov (1829-1903) deserves credit for pioneering the idea of a universal resurrection to be accomplished through scientific means. More recent advocates who have written books on the subject are Frank J. Tipler and R. Michael Perry.