Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the ...danweijers.com/word/Scientific Advancement...

Scientific Advancement and the Meaning of Life Draft 20-8-2010

Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the Meaning of Life

Dan Weijers (né Turton)Victoria University of Wellington

[email protected]

AbstractNaturalist theories of the meaning of life are criticised for offering much less meaning than their supernaturalist counterparts. Tolstoy’s version of this criticism is that naturalist theories do not allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite. This paper defends a novel view, Optimistic Naturalism, in order to refute Tolstoy’s criticism. Optimistic Naturalism is the idea that scientific and technological advancement will allow us to meaningfully connect with the infinite, thereby providing us with the chance to lead a truly meaningful life. The central tenets of Optimistic Naturalism are: Naturalism; meaningful lives are possible in a purely physical universe, The Infinity Connection; a meaningful connection with the infinite is required for a truly meaningful life and Scientific Optimism; continual scientific and technological advancement will allow us to make a meaningful connection with the infinite. By refuting Tolstoy’s criticism, Optimistic Naturalism also resolves Tolstoy’s Dilemma. Someone in Tolstoy’s Dilemma holds the following three beliefs: Naturalism, The Infinity Connection and that no naturalist theories allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite. This paper argues that those facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma should reject Tolstoy’s criticism, accept Scientific Optimism and attempt to lead a truly meaningful life by advancing science.

Keywords: the meaning of life, scientific advancement, Optimistic Naturalism, Scientific Optimism, The Infinity Connection, Tolstoy’s Dilemma

1. IntroductionIn the analytic debate on the meaning of life, theories are predominantly categorised according to a tripartite taxonomy: Supernaturalism; that more than a purely physical universe is required for life to be meaningful, Naturalism; that a meaningful life is possible in a purely physical universe, and Nihilism; that life cannot be meaningful.1 A major criticism of naturalist theories is that their accounts offer less meaning than supernaturalist theories. Tolstoy was amongst the first to articulate a version of this criticism. He identified the inability of naturalistic accounts to offer any kind of meaningful connection with the infinite.2 This paper explains and argues for a novel naturalistic position for the meaning of life debate – Optimistic Naturalism. Importantly, Optimistic Naturalism is a counterexample to Tolstoy’s criticism because it is a naturalist theory and it offers a meaningful connection with the infinite.

1 For more background on the debate and the established positions, see any of these useful reviews: (Metz 2001; 2002; 2007; 2008).2 “I understand that… the answer given by rational knowledge was only an indication that the answer might be got if the question were… the question of the relation of the finite to the infinite. I also understand that, no matter how irrational and monstrous the answers might be that faith gave, they had this advantage that they introduced into each answer the relation of the finite to the infinite.” (Tolstoy 2000, p. 17).

1

http://www.danweijers.com/


Tolstoy’s criticism of Naturalism arose because he found himself in a dilemma (henceforth Tolstoy’s Dilemma). Tolstoy was a dedicated naturalist and yet ruminations revealed that naturalist theories could not provide any meaningful answers to the question of the meaning of life.3 Specifically, Tolstoy was looking for a theory of the meaning of life that acknowledged the importance of connecting with the infinite in a meaningful way, something none of the extant naturalist theories offered.4 A formal construction of Tolstoy’s Dilemma follows:

Tolstoy’s Dilemma: belief in the following: 1) Naturalism; a meaningful life is possible in a purely physical universe, 2) The Infinity Connection; a meaningful connection with the infinite is required for a truly meaningful life and 3) naturalist theories do not allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite.

This situation constitutes a dilemma for Tolstoy because he had to choose between two options, both of which appeared irrational to him. Tolstoy could have either held onto all three beliefs or rejected one of them. Concurrently holding all three beliefs would have been irrational because they contain a contradiction. The option would have been to reject any one of the beliefs. This would have resolved the contradiction. However, rejecting any of the three beliefs would also have seemed irrational to Tolstoy because he arrived at each belief independently and in what he considered to be a rational way.

In the end, Tolstoy’s disappointment with naturalist theories led him to reject Naturalism and adopt a supernaturalist theory of the meaning of life; he became a Christian of sorts.5 Indeed, belief that Naturalism cannot offer the things that make a life truly meaningful can lead those who are tolerant of supernatural beliefs to opt for Supernaturalism and those who are intolerant of it to opt for Nihilism (Boylan 2008; Metz 2008). For those facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma, the introduction of Optimistic Naturalism should change this. Optimistic Naturalism is both a naturalist theory and a theory that offers a meaningful connection with the infinite. Therefore, Optimistic Naturalism provides reason to resolve the Tolstoy’s Dilemma by maintaining belief in 1 and 2 while rejecting 3.

The central tenets of Optimistic Naturalism (Naturalism, The Infinity Connection and Scientific Optimism) are explained and motivated below. Scientific Optimism is the only foundational principle of the three that will be specifically argued for in this paper. The focus on Scientific Optimism is because the overall plausibility of Optimistic Naturalism, and its ability to resolve

3 “My situation was a terrible one. I knew that I should not find anything on the path of rational knowledge but the negation of life, and there, in faith, nothing but the negation of reason, which was still more impossible than the negation of life.” (Tolstoy 2000, p. 16). “I sought in all the sciences, but far from finding what I wanted, became convinced that all who like myself had sought in knowledge for the meaning of life had found nothing.” (Tolstoy 1940, p. 23).4 While he was dealing with his dilemma, Tolstoy’s conception of connecting with the infinite in a meaningful way involved living forever or creating something that persists infinitely (Flew 1963, p. 113). However, Tolstoy’s conception later changed to be explicitly supernatural; “What real result will come of my life? – Eternal torment or eternal bliss. What meaning has life that death does not destroy? – Union with the eternal God: heaven.” (Tolstoy 1940, p. 50). In his most recent writings, such as What I Believe, Tolstoy stopped discussing the infinite despite still discussing the meaning of life (Flew 1963, p. 117).5 Tolstoy often used Christian terminology in his later works of non-fiction and studied the Gospels extensively, but he also studied several other religions (Flew 1963, p. 116). See also note 4 above.

2


Tolstoy’s Dilemma, depends on it. The other two foundational principles (Naturalism and The Infinity Connection) are assumed rather than argued for because this paper is primarily aimed at those who already believe both of these reasonable ideas. Following, and in light of, the explanation of Optimistic Naturalism, specific advice on how those facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma can resolve their incompatible beliefs, and how they should lead their lives, is given. It is also explained why the apparent tension facing current Optimistic Naturalists (needing to have faith in science) is not a reason to think that Optimistic Naturalism is incoherent.

2. Optimistic NaturalismOptimistic Naturalism is the idea that scientific and technological advancement will make it possible for us, as individuals, to live a life that is truly meaningfully. Scientific and technological advancement will allow us to do this by making it possible for us to connect with the infinite in a meaningful way. Since Optimistic Naturalism holds that a meaningful life does not require more than a purely physical universe, it is a type of Naturalism. However, Optimistic Naturalism’s offer of a connection with the infinite stands it apart from the extant naturalist theories. Optimistic Naturalism is based on the following three principles (explained in more detail below):

Naturalism: meaningful lives are possible in a purely physical universe.

The Infinity Connection: a meaningful connection with the infinite is required for a truly meaningful life.

Scientific Optimism: continual scientific and technological advancement will allow us to make a meaningful connection with the infinite.

Belief that all three of these principles are true makes one an Optimistic Naturalist. Optimistic Naturalism is intended to be an objective naturalist theory. According to objective theories, the amount of meaning in a life is determined by at least one factor external to the life in question. External factors do not play this role in subjective theories. For example, a subjective theory might make the amount of meaning in a life depend on the extent to which the person believes their most important desires are satisfied. The corresponding objective theory would make the amount of meaning in the life depend on the extent to which that person’s most important desires are actually satisfied. According to Optimistic Naturalism therefore, a life is only meaningful if it is actually connected with the infinite in a meaningful way. Subjective versions of Optimistic Naturalism are not out of the question, but are not discussed here as subjective theories tend to offer less meaningful lives than objective theories. Optimistic Naturalism is also intended to be an umbrella theory, capable of subsuming many more detailed and specific theories.

2.1. NaturalismNaturalism is the idea that a meaningful life is possible even if all that exists is purely physical. In line with most recent analytic works on the meaning of life, this paper assumes that Naturalism is independently plausible (Metz 2007, p. 203). Furthermore, arguing for Naturalism is difficult because its truth seems to hinge on two intertwined factors, both of which are fairly

3


resilient to argument. The two factors are socio-cultural influences and how much meaning one expects from existence. Indeed, Naturalism is easy to accept for atheists who expect very little meaning from life. For example, Taylor (2000) argues that creating finite meaning within our lives is as meaningful as we can hope for and so we should be satisfied with that. However, even otherwise naturalistically-inclined people might reject Naturalism on the basis that they do not find any of its offerings meaningful enough. For example, many people probably find Frankfurt’s (1982; 2002; 2004) naturalist theory (loving something or someone is what makes life meaningful) quite underwhelming compared to the offerings of supernaturalist theories. One reason for thinking that Frankfurt’s theory does not provide enough meaning is that it does not allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite. Supernaturalist accounts, however, always do allow for a connection with the infinite. Optimistic Naturalism should prevent these people from being forced to turn to Supernaturalism because it allows for naturalistically-inclined people to find the connection with the infinite that they hoped to find in a naturalistic theory.

2.2. The Infinity ConnectionThe Infinity Connection holds that for a life to be truly meaningful it must have a meaningful connection with the infinite. Without drawing too fine a distinction, it is obvious that some kinds of connection with the infinite are not particularly meaningful. It is similarly clear that other connections certainly are. Understanding the concept of an infinite series of numbers, or reading about an infinitely-self-perpetuating entity, does not appear to make a life any more meaningful. Whereas, living for infinity (immortability)6 or creating something that benefits the lives of others for an infinite period of time both do seem to make a life much more meaningful. Connections with the infinite could be placed on a continuum based on how meaningful they are. An immortable soul living an infinitely enjoyable life in the presence of an infinitely good God for an infinite period of time would be at the very meaningful end of the continuum. Drawing the infinity symbol would stand at the opposite end.

The umbrella version of Optimistic Naturalism, presented here, includes any meaningful connection with the infinite. A more specific version of Optimistic Naturalism, however, might stipulate that only certain kinds of connection with the infinite can make a life meaningful. For example, an infinite continuation of personal identity, or having a significant impact on humankind for infinity, might be required. Consideration of various theoretically-possible existences could be instructive here. Sisyphus was sentenced to an infinite existence of repeatedly pushing a huge boulder up a mountain just to watch it roll back down (Camus 1956). Sisyphus maintains his identity for an infinite period of time, but his toils are torturous and insignificant to himself and all others. Few would describe Sisyphus’s life as truly meaningful. Consider also, the life of Plato. Despite being long dead, Plato’s philosophical work continues to influence modern thought and looks likely to continue to do so. If humankind lives on for infinity, then it’s possible that Plato’s work could be significant to humankind for an infinite period of time. If Plato’s work does infinitely influence humankind, then his life seems truly meaningful. Even in this case, however, Plato’s life does not seem to be as meaningful as that of the immortable soul discussed above. These two examples show that an infinite continuation of personal identity might provide a life with more meaning, but that it is neither necessary nor

6 Immortability means the ability to live forever and immortality means the inability to die (Hocking 1957, pp. 74, 154; c.f. Metz 2003, p. 163).

4


sufficient to make a life truly meaningful. A more specific version of Optimistic Naturalism would have to argue for its specific account of what makes a connection to the infinite a meaningful one.

The Infinity Connection will be assumed, rather than argued for since (again) belief in it seems to hinge on factors that are fairly resilient to argument. Furthermore, the main target for this paper is people who find themselves in Tolstoy’s Dilemma, that is Naturalists who believe The Infinity Connection is true but do not know of any naturalistic theories that offer a meaningful connection with the infinite. Suffice it to say that it is not unreasonable or uncommon to believe, as Tolstoy did, that a life must be meaningfully connected with the infinite for it to be truly meaningful. Indeed, Supernaturalists (and probably some Nihilists) hold this general belief or a more specific version of it.7 Readers who outright reject The Infinity Connection as defined here might accept a weaker version of it and still see some value in Optimistic Naturalism. Such readers are recommended to consider whether a meaningful connection with the infinite would make their life more subjectively meaningful than it would have otherwise been.

One of the meaningful ways to connect with the infinite, identified above, may benefit from some clarification. There are two main different ways that a life may affect humankind for infinity. Either the infinite existence of humankind could be caused by the life in question or the work, legacy or similar product of the life continues to influence humankind for infinity. Importantly, the possibility of influencing future humans for infinity through one’s work or otherwise requires that humankind actually live on for an infinite period of time.

A life could cause the infinite existence of humankind in many different ways and also to differing degrees. Imagine that one scientist makes a discovery, which allows humankind to escape a localised disaster that would have destroyed us all. A scientist’s discovery could allow us to avoid destruction by the supernova of the sun, for example. All of her forebears, many of the people that she interacted with during her life (up to the point of her discovery), tax payers who helped to fund her research institute, other past and present scientists whose findings were relevant for her learning and her humankind-saving discovery, and many other tangentially related people have all played some degree of causal role in ensuring the ongoing existence of all future humans. Playing a non-trivial causal role in humankind persisting for an infinite period of time should be viewed as a way to meaningfully connect with the infinite. This would be a meaningful connection with the infinite because one’s life would be significant to all future humankind for infinity. Furthermore, the more important a role one plays in ensuring the infinite existence of humankind, the more significant to all future humankind for infinity (and the more meaningful) one’s life would be.

Assuming that other people ensure humankind lives on for infinity, one could also affect humankind infinitely through one’s work, legacy, or other product of one’s life. Possible examples might include: an author’s book continuing to influence some humans for infinity, the protests of a political activist becoming an integral part of collective knowledge about how we should live and continuing to be so indefinitely, or a work by an artist being saved in some publicly-accessible archive for infinity and inspiring a viewer once every million years or so. These examples demonstrate the variation in both the extent to which a life might infinitely

7 See for example Craig (2000) and Morris (1999).

5


affect future lives and the corresponding variation in how much more meaningful that life would become. Indeed, the life of artist whose work occasionally affects a future person is a case that falls near the centre of the continuum of meaning. It is certainly not obvious that this life would qualify as a truly meaningful life.

Note that this discussion of meaningful connections with the infinite allows for lives that cause harmful effects to humankind for infinity to also be meaningful. Imagine an evil scientist who creates a prophylactic-proof genetic disease that causes subtle pain to all humankind indefinitely. A more specific version of Optimistic Naturalism, than the general umbrella theory discussed in this paper, might stipulate that only positive affects should count as meaningful because, say, the creators of the view desire to create a theory of the meaning of life that is also morally good.

2.3. Scientific OptimismThe principle of Scientific Optimism holds that continual scientific and technological advancement will allow us to make a meaningful connection with the infinite. Combining Scientific Optimism with The Infinity Connection means that continual scientific and technological advancement will allow us the chance of leading truly meaningful lives. Scientific Optimism will be argued for in detail here because the plausibility of Optimistic Naturalism depends on it. The support of Scientific Optimism begins with two examples of how scientific and technological advancement might allow for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite. The examples are then followed with a general argument based on the unfathomable problem-solving power we will have at our disposal in the future.

The majority of the more appealing naturalistic ways for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite depend on humankind being able to live on indefinitely. Humankind living on for infinity could conceptually be achieved in two main ways, a particular generation of humans living forever, or there always being more new generations. Bearing this in mind, some restraints might be required. If humankind living on involves the continual creation of new generations, then these new generations should be caused by existing humans (as opposed to non-human causes, such as aliens or the evolution of another organism into something akin to a human). It might also be possible for us to cause future life that is not properly human life because it lacks some of the essential properties that define us as humans. Optimistic Naturalism is a theory of the meaning of life for humans and, as such, entails that a meaningful existence for humans is intrinsically bound up with what it means to be human. For this reason, it is important that humankind, and not just non-human life, lives on for infinity, regardless of whether or not we created the non-human life. Optimistic Naturalism, as described here, is also an umbrella theory of the meaning of life and so more detail on what the essential human-making features of a human life actually are is not necessary. A more specific version of Optimistic Naturalism might hold that self-consciousness, purposeful thinking, fruitfully communicating with others, or perhaps a combination of such factors are the hallmarks of humankind. Regardless of the final position on what general form the future life would have to take in order to be humankind proper, the principle of Scientific Optimism stipulates that this kind of life must continue to live for infinity and must either be us, or be created by us, to enable these kinds of meaningful connection with the infinite.

6


Scientific Optimism might seem incredibly optimistic because of its stipulation that continual scientific and technological advancements will enable us to make a meaningful connection with the infinite. On the topic of humankind living on for infinity, readers can be forgiven for thinking that science has confirmed as a fact that humankind will eventually be annihilated. Indeed, most cosmologists do believe that the universe will be unable to support life indefinitely (Starobinsky 2000). The most common justification for this belief is the prediction that the universe will continue to expand and cool until there is no free energy left to support life. The leading alternate theory predicts that the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of matter will reverse at some point. If all matter is eventually drawn back together, no life is expected to survive this Big Crunch. There are other naturalistic theories, however, about the fate of the universe and the chances of humankind’s ongoing survival. The two naturalist examples discussed below predict ways in which humankind could survive for infinity; first, an example of one generation that achieves immortability and second, an example of more generations being created for infinity.

In his book, The Singularity in Near, Ray Kurzweil predicts that exponential advancement of science and technology will enable human intelligence to merge with computers and eventually all matter in the universe. Kurzweil suggests that we will soon be able to safely upload our intelligences to computers, dramatically increasing our ability to advance science and technology and our own intelligence.8 The advantage of combining our human intelligence with computer hardware is that computer hardware is becoming faster exponentially, resulting in an intelligent human/computer that can create even more intelligent human/computers. After a few iterations of creating ever more intelligent human/computers, the exponential increase of intelligence will reach a singularity. Upon reaching the singularity human/computer intelligence becomes near infinite and Kurzweil predicts that our intelligence will colonise all matter. This will supposedly make us immortable, allowing us to use our all-encompassing problem-solving power to prevent the heat death of the universe by performing the unfathomable and changing the laws of physics (Kurzweil 2005, Chapter 6). If a generation of humankind could become immortable in this way, their lives should be considered truly meaningful.

The predictions that Kurzweil makes probably appear more than optimistic. However, there is good reason to believe that such an “intelligence explosion” is plausible. If a few fairly reasonable assumptions are granted, then the singularity is overwhelmingly likely to occur. Indeed, extreme effort or chance would be required to prevent it. (We could forcibly outlaw the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or a freak accident might destroy humankind before we created AI). As discussed by Dave Chalmers, the important assumptions are that humans can develop AI that is more intelligent than we are (AI+) and that AI+ can develop AI that is more intelligent than it is (AI++).9 Although we cannot yet be sure that these claims will be true, we should know before long. Humans can already create computers that can emulate various human and beyond-human functions. If scientists and computer programmers could create a computer that can perfectly emulate all human cognitive functions related to intelligence, then they could also add some beyond-human cognitive functions and processing power to create AI+. AI+ could then follow the same formula (only much faster) to create AI++ and so on.

8 See “Epoch 5: The Merger of Human Technology with Human Intelligence (Kurzweil 2005, pp20-21).9 (Chalmers, D. manuscript).

7


The prospect of an intelligence explosion like this one occurring in the near future has lead the likes of Kurzweil to consider how humans might make sure that they are not left behind. The most common response is in line with Kurzweil’s recommendation that we upload ourselves into AI+ and go along for the ride. Many philosophers would worry, however, that uploading a person’s intelligence into a machine would not create a being with the essential human quality of consciousness. Since we do not know how consciousness arises in humans or how we might decide if other types of being could be conscious, this worry is not unfounded. Kurzweil avoids this problem by insisting that intelligence is the important aspect of humankind that we need to preserve. If the advancement of science and technology allows all human functions to be emulated, however, then Optimistic Naturalists need not adopt a specific a theory as Kurzweil has.

Of course, it might also transpire that intelligence cannot colonise all matter and be able to change the laws of physics that are commonly thought to predict the eventual heat death of the universe. The laws of physics might not need changing for humankind to be able to live on for infinity, however. They might just need to be better understood. One little-discussed but live theory in cosmology, Eternal Inflation, predicts that new baby universes will always bubble out from our existing one.10 If this theory turns out to be true, then the right kinds of technology might enable humankind to escape into new universes whenever the existing one was becoming uninhabitable and, thereby, live on indefinitely.

Several leading scientists have successfully modelled the theoretical possibility of how humankind might intentionally create a new area of inflation (usually called a baby or bubble universe).11 Two practical problems still stand in the way of creating a useful baby universe in this way, however; the energy required to create them and finding a way to safely travel into them. To condense the required materials into the tiny space needed to create the baby universe would take approximately the total energy output of a galaxy (Kaku 2004). While this seems like a prohibitive amount of energy, prominent physicist Michio Kaku is confident that we will have the technology to harness this huge amount of energy well before the sun envelopes Earth. Even if we could create a baby universe, however, the intense forces involved might make it impossible to transport humans into it before it slips out of contact with our universe (Kaku 2004). In response to this worry, Kaku theorises that we could use more energy to stabilise the new universe long enough for humans or nanobots to enter it. If nanobots could survive the transition to a new universe, then they might also be programmed to collect and combine the raw materials necessary to create human life. If this or other similar processes prove to be physically as well as theoretically possible, then repeatedly recreating human life in new universes would allow humankind to live on indefinitely and we will have a good reason to think that Scientific Optimism is plausible. Furthermore, if someone were to play a partial, full or necessary role in such a process, this would make this person’s life connected with the infinite in a particularly meaningful way.

10 Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that new parts of this universe are inflating all of the time while other parts come to a halt because many physicists use ‘universe’ to mean ‘all that there is’, and others use it to mean ‘all that there is that obeys this set of physical laws’ (Bettini 2005). See Aguirre (2006) for an accessible introduction to Eternal Inflation.11 Research on the topic includes: Farhi & Guth (1987), Farhi, Guth & Guven (1990), Fischler, Morgan & Polchinski, (1990a; 1990b), Guendelman & Portnoy (1999; 2001), and Sakai et al. (2006).

8


A potential objection to scientific and technological advancement being able to allow humankind to live on indefinitely is that if there is a greater than zero probability that some disaster will prevent humankind from surviving in any finite period of time, then a disaster definitely will prevent humankind from surviving at some point over an infinite amount of time. While the argument does provide good reason to think that it might be very unlikely that humankind could possibly live on infinitely, it does not provide a good reason to think that humankind could not live on indefinitely. To see why, consider rolling a die; the probability of rolling a six is quite small if the die is only rolled once, and if the die is rolled four or five times, then the probability of rolling at least one six is much higher. Notice, however, that a robot could roll a die over and over indefinitely and it is possible that a six would never come up. In the same way, it is entirely possible that, despite the strong odds against it, an unavoidable humankind-destroying disaster never occurs even if we survive for infinity.

Furthermore, there is a good reason to think that the longer humankind survives (assuming that we continue to advance science and technology), the better equipped we will be to avert potentially humankind-destroying disasters. Drawing on the ideas of Kurzweil, discussed above, the creation of AI+ would most likely result in the law of accelerating returns applying to scientific and technological advancement. If this happens, then science and technology will increase exponentially and consequently so too will our problem-solving power. If scientific and technological advancement is exponential, then Scientific Optimism becomes much more plausible. Furthermore, the objection that humankind is exceedingly likely to be wiped out by some disaster in the very distant future becomes correspondingly less convincing.

Even if AI+ is impossible to create, and science and technology do not advance exponentially, all that is required for Scientific Optimism to have some credibility is that science and technology continue to advance quickly (something that seems overwhelmingly likely). Mere linear advancement of science and technology will be enough for us to avoid local disasters, such as catastrophic climate change or Earth being consumed by our sun as it turns into a red dwarf (on the assumption that we actually try and survive them). Furthermore, the predicted death of our observable universe is potentially trillions of years away, leaving plenty of time to find a method for enabling humankind to live on in a meaningful way. If humans can progress the output of aeronautical science all the way from ‘jumping’ to ‘interplanetary travel’ in just a few hundred years, then we cannot sensibly claim to be able to imagine what we could achieve in a few trillion years.

Taken individually, any specific theory about how scientific and technological progress might allow for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite seems (at least at this stage) very unlikely to be true. Indeed, firm belief that Kurzweil’s or Kaku’s theory is the way that scientific advancement will allow for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite is not plausibly justifiable. Kurzweil’s and Kaku’s theories are coherent, however, and so they cannot be dismissed out of hand. To believe in the principle of Scientific Optimism only entails belief that scientific and technological progress will make it possible for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite somehow. Perhaps either Kurzweil’s or Kaku’s theory turns out to be true. Or, more plausibly, perhaps scientific advancement will allow us to meaningfully connect with the infinite in a different way. Indeed, there are countless ways in which scientific advancement might allow us to meaningfully connect with the infinite. Considering these myriad possibilities in

9


combination with our continually-increasing ability to achieve things that seem impossible, belief in the plausibility of Scientific Optimism is perfectly rational (if perhaps a little optimistic).

3. What to do when facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma?Those who find themselves facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma believe in the following three propositions: Naturalism, The Infinity Connection and that naturalist theories do not allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite. In light of the plausibility of Scientific Optimism, anyone in the grip of Tolstoy’s Dilemma should jettison their pessimism about naturalist theories not allowing for a meaningful connection with the infinite. By rejecting this belief about naturalist theories in favour of Scientific Optimism, anyone subject to Tolstoy’s Dilemma would eliminate the incompatibility in their beliefs about the meaning of life and become an Optimistic Naturalist. This would allow for those facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma to find a way to meaningfully connect their life with the infinite without abandoning their naturalist beliefs. Furthermore, for those confronted with Tolstoy’s Dilemma, the plausibility of Scientific Optimism makes Optimistic Naturalism the only rational position that allows for them to lead a truly meaningful life.

How then should these new Optimistic Naturalists live in order to achieve a truly meaningful life? There are many potential options for someone to achieve a meaningful life according to the umbrella theory of Optimistic Naturalism, however, all of these options depend on at least one of the right kinds of connection with the infinite being established. Assuming that someone believes in Optimistic Naturalism and that they would like to lead a meaningful a life as possible, then they should establish which ways to meaningfully connect with the infinite are currently possible and then attempt to bring those connections about.

For at least some current adherents of Optimistic Naturalism, they would not be able to make their life meaningful by living on for infinity. This is because science and technology has not yet progressed to the stage where we can live forever by uploading ourselves to AI+ (or any other way). The only option for these Optimistic Naturalists, and the main option for the rest, is to hope to be able to significantly influence the future of humankind for infinity. Recall that this could be achieved in a variety of ways, such as through their art, legacy, contribution to science, or other significant achievement. In order to achieve this, though, current Optimistic Naturalists need it to be true that humankind will actually live on indefinitely. Unfortunately, humankind’s infinite existence is something that they could not rationally be sure of. Indeed, an integral part of being a current Optimistic Naturalist is being optimistic about what science and technology will be able to achieve in the future.

Because all current naturalist options for a meaningful connection with the infinite rely on humankind living for eternity, and because the advancement of science and technology appears to be the only way to bring that about, then it is recommend that current Optimistic Naturalists use whatever strengths they have to try to increase the speed of scientific and technological advancement generally and especially in areas relevant to avoiding potentially humankind-destroying disasters. For some Optimistic Naturalists this might mean continuing their research in some very specific field. For others it could mean focussing on their business enterprises and

10


using the profits to establish scientific research centres. It may even mean raising children to have a keen interest in science. No matter what the size or style of contribution to the advancement of science and technology, all such actions could result in a meaningful connection with the infinite. It is true that current Optimistic Naturalists could not be sure of whether their contributions to science will ever help bring about the saving of mankind, but their best bet is to try, and hope and perhaps even have faith.

A potential reason for Optimistic Naturalists not to lead their life in this kind of way might be that a genuine belief in Optimistic Naturalism as a theory of the meaning of life is incoherent. It could be argued that Optimistic Naturalism requires faith in Scientific Optimism being true, and that faith is not compatible with Naturalism, making the position incoherent. In order to properly respond to this criticism, the kind of faith that is required needs to be carefully analysed. The criticism claims that Optimistic Naturalists need it to be true that scientific and technological advancement will actually be able to allow for us to meaningfully connect with the infinite (Scientific Optimism) and, because there is no way (at least currently) for them to know that this is true, they have to rely on having faith that it is true. So, it is true that faith is needed by (at least) current Optimistic Naturalists. However, the kind of faith required here is not one that is incompatible with Naturalism. The kind of faith required is faith in the future existence of physical facts, such as whether or not humankind can survive indefinitely.

Faith in the future existence of physical facts is different to the kind required by supernaturalist theories of the meaning of life and also to the kind of faith required by all theories of the meaning of life. Supernaturalists have faith in the existence of supernatural entities, a faith that will always be required because the existence of supernatural entities is not accessible to our scientific standards of proof. This kind of faith is in tension with Naturalism and is different to the faith demanded of (at least) current Optimistic Naturalists. The difference is that Optimistic Naturalists need only have faith in something physical – something that may well be proven to exist in the future. Furthermore, both of these kinds of faith differ to the rather considerable leap that all proponents of any theory of the meaning of life have to make. We are faced with a plethora of internally-coherent theories purporting to tell us what the meaning of life is. Unfortunately, however we have no good method for determining if any particular one is more likely to be true than any of the others. Therefore, anyone who chooses to believe in a particular theory of the meaning of life has made a leap of faith because their chosen theory seems very unlikely to be true. Merely requiring faith in something, then, is not sufficient to make a Naturalist theory of the meaning of life incoherent. And, the particular kind of faith required by Optimistic Naturalism is certainly not one that is incompatible with Naturalism.

In addition to having faith in Scientific Optimism and trying to advance science and technology as much as possible, Optimistic naturalists should also consider pursuing other naturalist theories of the meaning of life (assuming that are plausible and not in tension with Optimistic Naturalism). The Infinity Connection does not rule out any finitely-meaningful activities from contributing to subjective meaning within a life. However, it must be acknowledged that a meaningful connection with the infinite is the only way to lead a truly or objectively meaningful life. Because of this flexibility, Optimistic Naturalists are free to ‘hedge their bets’; they can rationally pursue activities recommended by other naturalist theories in conjunction with pursuit of a more meaningful connection with the infinite. While this doubling up on theories might

11


seem irrational (similar to desiring to add a finite amount of value to an infinite amount of value in an attempt to get more value), it is not. Receiving the full benefits of being an Optimistic Naturalist depends on Scientific Optimism being true. And, since, it is possible that Scientific Optimism will turn out not to be true in the end, it seems sensible to lead a life informed by as many compatible theories of the meaning of life as possible.

So, the Optimistic Naturalist should have faith that Scientific Optimism is true (that the advancement of science and technology will enable us to connect with the infinite in at least one meaningfully way). Furthermore, they should pursue as many potential ways to meaningfully connect with the infinite as possible. It would also seem prudent to pursue any other coherent naturalist theory that they find plausible and is not in tension with Optimistic Naturalism, since doing so provides some insurance against the possibility that Scientific Optimism is false. Specifically for the current Optimistic Naturalists, this will mean having faith that humankind will survive indefinitely and trying to make a big splash in the universe that will continue to send ripples of significance for the humans throughout it for infinity. The best way for current Optimistic Naturalists to make such a splash is by causing humankind to avoid being eradicated by future catastrophes, which would be best achieved by advancing science and technology.

4. ConclusionOptimistic Naturalism is the idea that scientific and technological advancement will allow us to connect with the infinite in at least one kind of meaningful way and, thereby, provide us with the chance to lead a truly meaningful life (compared to the much less meaningful lives offered by the extant naturalist theories). Optimistic Naturalism is based on the principles of Naturalism, The Infinity Connection and Scientific Optimism. Most of the arguments in this paper were in support of Scientific Optimism because Optimistic Naturalism depends greatly on its plausibility. The plausibility of Scientific Optimism has been argued for using two examples and a general argument about the unfathomable possibilities of future scientific and technological advances. In the end, though, belief in Scientific Optimism was argued to require a leap of faith, although not of the kind that would make Optimistic Naturalism incoherent.

Within the paper, I have argued that Optimistic Naturalism refutes Tolstoy’s criticism of Naturalism (that none of the theories it subsumes allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite). I have also argued that those who find themselves facing Tolstoy’s Dilemma (belief in Naturalism, The Infinity Connection and that no naturalist theories allow for a meaningful connection with the infinite) should adopt Optimistic Naturalism. This was argued on the basis that Optimistic Naturalism makes the deeper meaning that they are looking for available, while not denying them their naturalistic principles.

Reference ListAguirre, A. (2006). Where Did It All Come From? Sky & Telescope, November: 36-41.

Bettini, S. (2005). A Cosmic Archipelago: Multiverse Scenarios in the History of Modern Cosmology, arXiv:physics/0510111.

12


Boylan, M. (2008). The Good, the True and the Beautiful: A Quest for Meaning, Continuum International: New York.

Camus, A. (1956). The myth of Sisyphus, in The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, tr. By Justin O'Brien, Vintage Books: New York.

Chalmers, D. (manuscript). The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, Available from <http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf>, accessed on 22/6/2010.

Craig, W. (2000). The Absurdity of Life without God, in E.D. Klemke (ed.), The Meaning of Life, 2nd edition, 40-56, New York: Oxford University Press.

Farhi, E., Guth, A. (1987). An Obstacle to Creating a Universe in the Laboratory, Physics Letters B, 183(2): 149-155.

Farhi, E., Guth, A. & Guven, J. (1990). Is it Possible to Create a Universe in the Laboratory by Quantum Tunneling?, Nuclear Physics B, 339: 417-490.

Fischler, W., Morgan, D. & Polchinski, J. (1990a). Quantum Nucleation of False Vacuum Bubbles, Physics Review D, 41: 2638.

Fischler, W., Morgan, D. & Polchinski, J. (1990b). Quantization of False-Vacuum Bubbles: A Hamiltonian Treatment of Gravitational Tunneling, Physics Review D, 42: 4042.

Flew, A. (1963). Tolstoi and the Meaning of Life, Ethics, 73(2): 110-118.

Frankfurt, H, (1982). The Importance of What We Care About, Synthese, 53: 257-72.

Frankfurt, H. (2002). Reply to Susan Wolf, in: S. Buss & L. Overton (eds.), The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt, 245-252, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Frankfurt, H. (2004). The Reasons of Love, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Guendelman, E. & Portnoy, J. (1999). The Universe out of an Elementary Particle?, Classical Quantum Gravity, 16: 3315.

Guendelman, E. & Portnoy, J. (2001). Almost Classical Creation of a Universe, Modern Physics Letters A, 16: 1079.

Hocking, W. (1957). The Meaning of Immortality in Human Experience, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Kaku, M. (2004), Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, Doubleday: New York.

13

http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf


Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Viking Penguin: New York.

Metz, T. (2001). The Concept of a Meaningful Life, American Philosophical Quarterly, 38(2): 137-153.

Metz, T. (2002). Recent Work on the Meaning of Life, Ethics, 112 (July 2002): 781-814.

Metz, T. (2003). The Immortality Requirement for Life’s Meaning, Ratio (new series), XVI 2 June 2003 0034-0006: 161-177.

Metz, T. (2007). New Developments in the Meaning of Life, Philosophy Compass, 2/2 (2007): 196-217.

Metz, T. (2008). The Meaning of Life, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/life-meaning/

Morris, T. (1992). Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Sakai, N., Nakao, K.-I., Ishihara, H. & Kobayashi, M. (2006). Is it Possible to Create a Universe out of a Monopole in the Laboratory? Physics Review D, 74: 024026.

Starobinsky, A. (2000). Future and Origin of our Universe: Modern View, Gravitation and Cosmology, 6:157-163.

Taylor, R. (2000). The Meaning of Life, in E.D. Klemke (ed.), The Meaning of Life, 2nd edition, 167-175. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tolstoy, L. (2000). My Confession, in E.D. Klemke (ed.), The Meaning of Life, 2nd edition, 11-20. New York: Oxford University Press. Reprint from the 1905 Leo Wiener translation published by J M Dent in London.

Tolstoy, L. (1940). My Confession, London and New York: Oxford University Press. Translated by A. Maude.

14

Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the ...danweijers.com/word/Scientific Advancement...

Documents

Transcript of Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the ...danweijers.com/word/Scientific Advancement...