‘Immortality is Awesome, Actually’ — Against the Philosophy of Finitude — J.D. Jayne

How an Open Future Changes the Case Against Immortality.

The Opening Claim

The traditional case against immortality often assumes that life is meaningful largely due to its finitude. The fact that life will end. That our choices matter because time is scarce. I argue the opposite. If the universe and future remain open1 then immortality grants access to infinite novelty, growth, and participation in the ongoing creation of reality. The value of life is not derived from its ending, but from the possibility of more participation ahead.

While researching some of the previous philosophical questions here, I kept returning to the topic of immortality. I’m not talking about life extension itself, but how often I saw that the defense of mortality was being treated as self-evident. We encounter the assumption that finitude is a boon, and that death gives life meaning. I set out to examine that assumption, because I think it is less obvious than it may seem.

…So I propose the following;

P1: A life is meaningful insofar as it contains novel opportunities for genuine participation in reality.

P2: Genuine participation requires the possibility of novelty, discovery, growth, or creation.

P3: An open universe continually generates those possibilities.

P4: If reality remains indefinitely open, those possibilities remain indefinitely available.

P5: Immortality preserves access to those possibilities.

C: Therefore, if reality remains indefinitely open, then immortality is compatible with an indefinitely meaningful life.

In short, immortality need not lead to boredom. Rather than death being the “horizon that gives life meaning,” immortality may give us access to the inexhaustible horizon of becoming.

link