Our Labours Are to Build a Heaven
Abstract: Building on Nick Bostrom’s work on Simulation Theory, this paper aims to explore the idea that it is possible to create a simulated heaven [Bostrom after life section on page 12]. The paper then asks what the limits of technological progress are- whether it’s possible that a Tier 3 civilization at its peak can resuscitate conscious agents who died- and, assuming that it is possible- the conclusion is formed that individuals and society should follow a moral philosophy that is ultimately duty-based, where the ultimate aim of our species is to eventually create a simulated heaven for any conscious agent that has ever existed on earth (this category will include all of us, who will be dead by the time our descendants achieve this goal).
Introduction:
Dr. Manhattan once remarked on the state of humanity — “They claim their labors are to build a heaven yet their heaven is populated with horrors.”
Jordan Peterson writes “You could help direct the world, on its careening trajectory, a bit more toward heaven and a bit more away from Hell. Once having understood Hell, researched it, so to speak–particularly your own individual Hell–you could decide against going there or creating that. You could aim elsewhere. You could, in fact, devote your life to this. That would give you a Meaning, with a capital M.” — Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life, Page 63
There are plenty of references in literature and philosophy about humanity’s efforts to create heaven on earth. These references usually relate to the efforts bringing about a utopian-like world for future generations… but what if our efforts were to be devoted to bringing about a utopian-like world not just for future generations, but for the present and past inhabitants of our world?
Body:
In his paper, Bostrom proposes the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation, engineered in the “posthuman” stage of our evolution. Our minds are real, but the environments we experience are not.
If such a thing is technologically achievable, one question to explore is whether this posthuman civilization would also simulate a permanent heaven for every creature that ever lived.
Bostrom approaches this idea in the following passage: […]if nobody can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real possibility. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, even the basement civilization may have a reason to behave ethically. The fact that it has such a reason for moral behavior would of course add to everybody else’s reason for behaving morally, and so on, in truly virtuous circle. One might get a kind of universal ethical imperative, which it would be in everybody’s self-interest to obey, as it were “from nowhere”. (VI. INTERPRETATION)
The “ancestor simulations” of proposition 3, where our everyday lives are actually synthetic experiences, could extend into an afterlife stage where we enter a computerized heaven. Every single creature that ever lived would be permanently stored in this synthetic afterlife. Us and the deceased will be resuscitated through traversable wormholes, a priori methods, or some other means beyond my intellectual capacity to explain. In many ways, technology has already moved us closer to naturalistic theogony in observable ways. We once theologised about God seeing and judging everything that we do. A globally connected internet network now makes that a possible reality where we are both the seer and the judge. Every year we become more capable of manipulating our environment in ways that would have been considered Godly a century ago- synthetic rain, artificial meat production, cloning, etc. Ideas that seemed like science fiction fantasies are being realized.
Now, if we are to imagine that a synthetic heaven is possible to create, a second question that might be worth asking is whether the posthuman civilization would actually want to. As a believer in Kantian ethics, my assumption is that it would, and thus, a synthetic heaven for all creatures that have ever lived is a proposition that might be true.
Not having the appreciable educational background to explore the physics behind this proposition to its proper extent, I will now explore the moral dynamics involved in this theory.
Immanuel Kant affirmed that moral truths exist. What is right or wrong can be determined by reason. Long dialectic chains of reasoning can guide our ethics. If, it is confirmed by science that, in the future, it will be possible to synthesize heaven for all creatures that have ever lived, then Kant’s moral framework will be given new breath and a derivative of it will be accepted as the guiding ethical philosophy of our species.
All lives have infinite value. With the realization that our descendants can one day create a heaven, the idea that life has meaning and the soul or mind can have permanence will deal a damaging blow to nihilism. We have a duty to ourselves and to others. If we live lives guided by reason, where we strive to be our best, most productive selves, and treat others well and encourage them to be at their best, and participate in our communities positively, then we will contribute to the advancement of our species, increasing the likelihood of our descendants reaching a posthuman stage where they’ll be capable of simulating an ideal permanence for us, where we could be with our loved ones forever, living in a permanent Kingdom of Ends.
This moral schema inverts Bostrom’s naturalistic theogony rumination. We will be morally guided not by fear of judgment, where we assume that we might be living in a simulation which could possibly have a simulated afterlife related to our moral conduct, but by our hope, faith, and optimism that our descendants will one day create a permanent heaven for all of us and that it is necessary for humanity to move upwards and upwards and for each of us to play a role in that. This moral prescription should appeal even to psychopaths and narcissists as they would find eternal existence preferable and understand that contributing to this ultimate aim would increase the probability of its fruition.
Conclusion:
If the great works of history’s greatest ethicists are not enough to motivate participants of society to be socially conscious, productive, responsible moral agents, perhaps this idea, given a platform in philosophy and science rather than dogmatic religion, that an advanced posthuman civilization will one day be capable of creating heaven for us and our loved ones, will invigorate many people’s spirits and move us closer to a better world.
This long-winded paper expressed in a logical syllogism:
Premise 1: At some point in our civilization, we can eventually create heaven ourselves
Premise 2: Deceased beings can be entered into this heaven
Premise 3: Most people would want their loved ones to go to heaven and to be with them.
Promise 4: As a society, and as individuals, we have a moral imperative to realize this dream.
Conclusion — Humanity’s ultimate aim should be to construct a heaven for all conscious beings that have ever existed. On an individual level, that means one must contribute to this collective goal by living a moral life — to aim for excellence in one’s character and social duty as we are all pieces in this puzzle.
Updates:
February 2, 2021:
‘New Microsoft patent aims to revive dead people as an AI chat bot’
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKwqzkxlrGa/
This connects to one of the ideas I explore in this paper of deceased people having their consciousness resuscitated and uploaded into the synthetic heaven. Science in 2021 is already moving towards a direction where we can boldly attempt this.
February 19, 2023:
‘Tuvalu To Become The World’s First Digital Country in the Metaverse’
We keep getting closer.
