Infinite Flesh

Introduction

At first glance, science tells a grim story of your future. According to the scientific view of life, you're an entirely physical thing - you are your body. Your body is a part of our universe. According to science, our universe operates entirely in accordance with natural laws. Sadly, these laws imply that your body will soon die - you will die. After you die, the laws of nature seem to imply that you're gone forever. As far as it goes, science tells an accurate story. It's the truth. But is it the whole truth? The scientific story is the whole truth only if our physical universe is the whole of reality.

Many philosophers have argued for the existence of things that are not parts of our universe. Arguments, based on science, have been given for the existence of other universes, of abstract objects, and so on. Anyone taking these arguments seriously will agree that science points beyond itself. Science suggests its own extensions. And some of these extensions may affirm life after death. Of course, we are not interested in old-fashioned supernaturalism. Any acceptable extension of the scientific story has to be consistent with the scientific outlook. It has to affirm that reality as a whole is rationally organized. There are no miracles. It has to stay within established scientific categories. There are no ghosts. As a rule, we will entertain the existence of an object, or a kind of object, if, and only if, it plays some role in some theory that has some explanatory power.

We will argue that the scientific story can be extended in ways that affirm life after death. We think there are good reasons to believe that our universe is not all that exists. If our reasoning is correct, then our universe is a part of a much larger system. And just as our universe is a part of a much larger system, so our local laws of nature are parts of much larger global laws. These larger laws are laws - the reality of which our universe is a part is rationally organized. These larger laws imply that, after you die here, you will live again. However, you will not live again in our universe. You will live again elsewhere. Our theory of life after death is therefore a kind of resurrection theory. It has deep roots in Neoplatonism, classical Christian thought, and modern rationalism. But it is not sectarian. It has strong affinities with certain Buddhist theories of reincarnation.

We refer to our theory as the revision theory of resurrection (the RTR). The RTR is based heavily on ideas taken from computer science, complexity theory, and the theory of self-organization. It aims to meet the high standards of modern analytic philosophy. But many analysts are highly skeptical. They will object that any theory of life after death is too speculative to be taken seriously. What about the RTR? Is it just another piece of crazy metaphysics? Can we take it seriously? At the very least, we have to show that the RTR is superior to its competitors. And this won't be hard. Competing theories of life after death involve either massive violations of deep natural laws or require the existence of objects that are not found in scientific ontologies. The RTR is consistent with science. It is supported by empirical arguments. Certainly, the RTR has weak points (and part of our job is to point them out). Nevertheless, the plausibility of the RTR is high enough that it can seriously be advertised as one of the best available theories of life after death. We summarize the development of the RTR in what follows. Naturally, any careful thinker recognizes that a summary is necessarily impressionistic and vague. And you're very careful.

Resurrection in This Universe

We begin with one of the classical Biblical theories of resurrection. It says that, after you die, your corpse will be revived. Probably the oldest argument for the revival theory of resurrection is the Argument from Cryptobiosis. According to that argument, your corpse isn't really dead - it's just asleep. Your corpse will awaken from death. Unfortunately, corpses are not sleeping. They can't be revived. We turn to another ancient argument for resurrection: the Argument from Cyclical Renewal. Various Church Fathers - Clement of Rome, Tertullian, and Cyril of Jerusalem - made this argument. After you die, your corpse turns into a kind of seed. Just as plant seeds sprout in the spring, so your seed will rise out of its grave at the time of the resurrection. A fatal problem is that corpses generally dissolve. They don't turn into seeds of any kind. The revival theories don't work.

We turn to another classical resurrection theory from the Bible. This is the reassembly theory. After your death, your corpse dissolves and your atoms wander off. At the time of the resurrection, your atoms will be gathered back together and your body will be rebuilt from them. While some versions of the reassembly theory depend on miracles, others depend only on the operation of natural laws. The Argument from Cyclical Renewal is easily modified to support a naturalistic version of reassembly. From the local cycles on earth (such as the seasons), we infer that there is a global cycle for the whole universe. There is a Great Year. But this Great Year is not like the Stoic notion of the eternal return of the same. Each next Great Year is not exactly the same as the last one. The great cycle is not merely repetitive; it is something like a positive feedback loop in which value is always self-amplifying. Each next Great Year is a better cycle. This cycle brings your atoms back together to reform your body in a better way. You are resurrected. Sadly, this Argument from Cyclical Renewal fails. You won't be reassembled.

Many recent writers have argued that the spirit of the Biblical theories is preserved in the thesis that resurrection is replication. Specifically, the first stage of your new resurrection body is an exact duplicate of the last living stage of your earthly body. After your replica appears in the resurrection context, it is healed and rejuvenated. You go on to live your new life. Surprisingly, these replica theories are highly naturalistic. They generally say that a human person is identical with his or her body. Although these theories are highly naturalistic, they don't reject the notion of the soul. The soul is to the body as a program is to its computer. Writers like Reichenbach, Mackay, and Polkinghorne use this analogy. Continuing with this computational analogy, the replication theorists say that the death of the earthly body is like the break down of a computer. When the computer breaks, that does not imply that the program is finished. The program can be installed on a new computer. Accordingly, your soul now runs on its new resurrection body.

An important consequence of any replication theory is that the new body is not identical to the old body. A copy is never identical to its original. They are distinct things. Many writers find this objectionable. They claim that resurrection requires the preservation of personal identity; consequently, replication theories are not resurrection theories. It is hard to see why this claim is so widely accepted. After all, you can only be resurrected after your death. And, if you are your body, it's easy to show that the preservation of personal identity after death is logically impossible. If you are your body, your personal identity necessarily ends with your death. It ends when your biological activity ends. Any theory that requires the preservation of personal identity is not a resurrection theory - it is a survival theory. For example, the theories of van Inwagen, Hasker, Zimmerman, Corcoran, and Hudson are survival theories. The resurrection of the body demands the sacrifice of personal identity. Your old self must die so that your new self can begin. You must be born again. Still, if identity is lost, what is the relation between your old self and your new self?

We use counterpart theory to analyze the relation between your old self and your new self. Counterpart theory is controversial. Nevertheless, counterpart theory goes hand in hand with some very serious logic. According to the interpretation of modal logic advocated by Lewis, you have modal counterparts in other universes. According to the interpretation of temporal logic advocated by Sider and Hawley, you have temporal counterparts at other times. We argue that your new self is a resurrection counterpart of your old self. We discuss resurrection counterparts in detail. They combine features of both modal and temporal counterparts - they exist in future resurrection universes. Since your resurrection counterpart (your new self) is a future counterpart of your present earthly body, claims about your future are justified by the existence of your new self. On the one hand, you can truly say that you will be resurrected and you will be identical with some resurrection body and person. On the other hand, you cannot truly say that you are identical with a resurrection body or that you are the same person as some resurrection person. Here the difference between true and false is the difference between the future and the present tenses. When talking about time, tense matters. Temporal counterpart theory nicely solves many problems of trans-death identity. We consider some objections to the thesis that the new body is a resurrection counterpart. After defeating those objections, we go on to offer a definition of resurrection. We end with an assessment of replication theories. Our best science says that you cannot be replicated in this universe.

Resurrection in Other Universes

After you die, you won't continue to exist in any way in this universe. Your body won't be revived or reassembled or replicated. You won't be resurrected in this universe. Many thinkers believe that this universe is all that exists. If that's true, then you won't live again after you die. But other thinkers believe that there are other universes besides this universe. If that's true, then you've still got hope. You can be resurrected in some other universe. We look at three multi-universe resurrection theories.

We open with John Hick's idea that you will be resurrected as a replica in another universe - a resurrection universe. For Hick, the purpose of resurrection is not eternal reward or punishment, it is the perfection of every person. It is the actualization of all positive potentials of the person. This perfection is a pilgrim's progress from human finitude towards divine infinity. Hick therefore posits a series of resurrections in a series of universes. Science permits the existence of such universes. The affirmation of other and entirely physical universes is a reasonable faith in things unseen. Again, we can modify the Argument from Cyclical Renewal to justify the existence of other universes. Just as things in our universe are caught up in local cycles, so our universe itself is caught up in a global cycle. This global cycle is a positive feedback loop in which value is self-amplifying. It generates a series of ever-better universes. Still, Hick's theory is not fully scientific. The production of the replica is not natural. It is not created in any natural way. We fix this problem by proposing that the your resurrection replica must be produced naturally. It must begin with birth in the usual way. You must be born again.

You will live another life. You will be recreated in another universe. But your recreated self will not repeat your old earthly life. On the contrary, your recreated self will live a better version of your old earthly life. To be resurrected is to be recreated in a better way. It is to live an new and improved version of your previous life. Several writers have proposed theories of resurrection by recreation. For instance, we look briefly at Forrest's recreation theory. One advantage of recreation is that you can be recreated many times. We've affirmed that the purpose of resurrection is the perfection of every person. But one body can actualize only one sequence of potentialities, and your potentials branch at every moment. Your opportunities for excellence form a branching tree. To ensure the actualization of all your positive potentialities, Dilley says you are multiplied at every resurrection. Your earthly body is the root of a branching tree of resurrection counterparts. Dilley's reasoning is sound. There is a series of resurrections. At every resurrection, your counterparts are multiplied. For every way your life can be improved, you have a resurrection counterpart whose life is improved in exactly that way.

According to the recreation theory, your earthly life is followed by a plurality of better resurrection lives in better resurrection universes. You are the root of a branching tree of resurrection counterparts. For convenience we refer to your resurrection counterparts as your better selves. Each of your better selves lives out, from birth to death, a revised and more perfect version of your life. For any way your life can be improved, you have a first generation better self whose life is improved in that way. And the lives of your better selves can also be improved. For every one of your better selves, for every way to improve its life, it too has a resurrection counterpart - a better better self - whose life is improved in that way. For every one of your better selves, for every way to improve its life, you have a second generation better self whose life is improved in that way.

The recreation theory affirms a series of generations of branching resurrections. This system is closed under the improvement relation. For any way the life of any n-th generation self can be improved, it has an (n+1)-th generation self whose life is improved in that way. These generations go on forever. Each self lives its own life in its own ecosystem in its own universe. And just as the life of a single body can be improved, so the lives of many interacting bodies - both human and non-human - can be collectively improved. The purpose of the resurrection is the perfection of all living things. Whole societies and ecosystems are improved from one universe to the next. Consequently, the recreation theory posits the existence of a branching tree of universes. While such a tree might seem far-fetched, we note that modern cosmologists talk freely about trees of universes. And Forrest has recently proposed a similar resurrection theory, based on the many-universes version of quantum mechanics. So these ideas have some empirical basis.

You have many better future lives. Your better future lives realize more and more of your positive potentials. And yet no finite sequence of better future lives is sufficient to realize all your positive potentials. Your positive potentials can be extended into the infinite. So your tree of better selves has to pass from the finite to the transfinite. The revision theory of resurrection (the RTR) extends the recreation theory to the transfinite. For any endless series of your better and better selves, and for any way that entire series can be improved, you have an infinitely better self whose life is improved in exactly that way. Your infinitely better selves are your first transfinite resurrection counterparts. From revision to revision, from resurrection to resurrection, your counterparts grow more and more perfect. They approach and achieve infinite perfection. They rise in perfection towards the Absolute.

The Way of all Flesh

Our earthly human bodies are defective in many ways - they suffer from many structural flaws; they are vulnerable to injury and disease; they age quickly and die. Fortunately, the RTR says that our bodies are caught up in a divine process that aims at the perfection of all things. Our bodies will be resurrected, and our new bodies will be improved versions of our old earthly bodies. All the positive potentials of our bodies will be actualized.

One might object we cannot know how our resurrection bodies will be improved - it's a mystery. Our first reply is that the body implies its own improvements. The human life pattern - the form of the body, the body-program, the soul itself - implies a series of functionally corrected and extended body types. Our second reply is that classical writers used their natural reasoning powers to discuss the resurrection body. Augustine and Aquinas wrote extensively about the resurrection body. Although speculations by these classical writers are intriguing, they were conducted without modern science.

Many recent writers (generally known as futurists and transhumanists) used modern science to describe ways to improve the body. For example, Kurzweil says that a natural human body is an instance of the type Human 1.0. He argues that technology will be used to convert bodies of type Human 1.0 into bodies of type Human 2.0. And those bodies will be converted into bodies of type Human 3.0. For Kurzweil, these conversions aim to leave biology behind. Bodies of type 2.0 and 3.0 are non-biological machines. Kurzweil says that to overcome the limits of the earthly flesh, we must abandon biology. On our view, the resurrection does not abandon biology; the resurrection aims to perfect it.

We use modern biology to sketch a series of five increasingly better human bodies. An earthly body is transformed into an optimized body by making all its organs as good at their jobs as human organs can be. Your optimized resurrection counterparts are as smart, strong, fast, and healthy as humans can be. An optimized body is transformed into an idealized body by making all its organs as good at their jobs as any carbon-based organs can be. Your idealized counterparts are as smart, strong, fast, and healthy as any living things can be. Evolution has provided other animals with organs far more powerful than human organs. Idealized human organs have those powers. Lungs as efficient as bird lungs; bones as strong as cat bones; eyes that can see into the infrared and ultraviolet.

An idealized body is transformed into an extended body by continuing the iteration of the growth plan of the body to deeper levels of detail. The body has a fractal structure generated by repeated cellular doubling - an iterative program. This growth program can be extended endlessly. There is an endless series of generations of extended resurrection bodies. From generation to generation, the organ powers of these bodies double. The bodies in the next generation are always twice as smart, strong, fast, and healthy as those in the previous generation. For every way the power of any human organ can be doubled, their organ powers are doubled in that way. Metabolisms that generate twice as much energy twice as efficiently; muscles twice as fast and strong; bones twice as hard to break; eyes that see twice the detail; hands with twice the speed and dexterity; brains with twice the computational power. This endless doubling leads to the infinite.

An endless series of extended bodies is transformed into a countably infinite body by taking the limit (in the mathematical sense) of that series. The organs of such a body are infinitely detailed. Consider, for instance, a retina with infinitely many photocells; a brain with the power of an infinite computer; a hand capable of infinite precision movement. A countably infinite body is transformed into an uncountably infinite body by adding cells so that the detail of the flesh satisfies the mathematical definition of continuity. Every part of such a body has the complexity of the mathematical continuum. The progression of types of bodies rises to the absolute infinite. Current science gives us the conceptual tools to describe these glorious bodies with exquisite precision.

Supermachines and Superminds

We've described a series of increasingly complex bodies: (1) earthly bodies; (2) optimized bodies; (3) idealized bodies; (4) extended bodies; and (5) countably infinite bodies. Finally, we very briefly mentioned (6) uncountably infinite bodies. At this point, we're ready to talk about infinitely complex and powerful (infinitary) bodies. All bodies are machines. For the sake of completeness, we start with a short discussion of finitely complex and powerful (finitary) machines. After that, we jump right up to the infinite. Our discussion of the infinite is mathematically serious but avoids unfriendly technicalities.

We introduce infinitary machines. These are the supermachines. Supermachines have infinitely many states; are sensitive to infinitely many distinct inputs; and can produce infinitely many distinct outputs. Supermachines can perform supertasks. A supertask is the performance of infinitely many distinct operations in finite space-time. The endlessness of the finite is no obstacle to a supermachine. Supermachines can easily accelerate through that endlessness. A supermachine can count through all the finite numbers in one second - by always counting off the next number twice as fast. Some infinitary machines are living. And some living infinitary machines are intelligent - they are the superminds.

Superminds perform perceptual supertasks. A supermind has eyes that are like cameras with infinitely many pixels - between any two pixels, there is another pixel. The retina of a supereye is mathematically dense. A supermind can thus instantly see infinite detail.

Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. A supermind can think infinitely many distinct thoughts in finite time; it can solve infinitely hard problems (e.g. a supermind can compute the halting function for ordinary Turing machines). The thoughts of superminds are formed in infinitely complex languages - those thoughts are sentences containing infinitely many symbols. A supermind can comprehend any finitary structure in a single thought. Since all evidence is that our universe is only finitely complex, a supermind can grasp the entire history of our universe, down to the smallest detail, in a single thought.

Superminds perform motor supertasks. A supermind can paint a picture with infinite detail. It can play chess on an infinite board with infinitely many pieces. It can play infinitary tennis - with each return, the ball travels twice as fast, and both the ball and the rackets become twice as small. But that's no problem, since for any movement of any speed or precision, a supermind can perform that movement twice as fast with twice the precision. Superminds have infinite dexterity. They are super-athletes.

The Arguments

We give three arguments for the RTR. Our first argument for the RTR is a modernized version of the classical Cosmological Argument. We are looking for an explanation for our universe. Why does our universe exist? Obviously, our universe is complex. As we survey the things in our universe, we observe that more complex things come from less complex things. For example, we have learned that more complex organisms come from simpler organisms. Turning our attention to our universe as a whole, we infer that our universe has emerged from some simpler universe. The argument reasons backwards to the existence of the simplest of all possible universes. The simplest universe is foundational. It is the start of a positive feedback loop in which complexity is self-increasing. Reality is self-organizing. This self-organization is lawful. Simpler universes generate more complex universes; hence there is a branching tree of universes. Since the RTR assumes that there is a branching tree of universes, this Cosmological Argument supports the RTR.

Our second argument for the RTR is the Argument from the Will. This argument is deeply Leibnizian - it builds on his notions that every possibility tends naturally to actuality and that more perfect systems of possibilities have greater tendencies to actuality. Every thing has some nature - its program. Every nature has some will to perfection. It wills the actuality of all its positive potentials. This will is not psychological; it is ontological. Why are there any actualized possibilities? Because all natures will their perfections. We give a precise analysis of this will in computational terms. For every way any universe can be improved, that universe wills the actuality of another universe that is improved in that way. And at the level of universes, there are no obstructions to actualization. Hence a tree of ever more perfect universes grows up within the system of all possible universes.

Our third argument for the RTR is a version of the Fine Tuning Argument. The Fine Tuning Argument assumes that our universe is highly complex. This high complexity needs some explanation. We look at six hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the high complexity of our universe. We pay close attention to the Fecund Universe Hypothesis (the FUH). The FUH was developed by the cosmologist Lee Smolin. Smolin says that universes are like organisms (1992; 1997). They reproduce asexually. From generation to generation, they become more complex - hence more supportive of life. On the one hand, we will argue that the FUH suffers from fatal flaws. On the other hand, we believe that its central idea is correct. The central idea is that our universe was generated in a process of cosmological self-organization. By making Smolin's FUH more abstract, and by fixing some of its problems, we obtain the Algorithmic Hypothesis.

The Algorithmic Hypothesis is the conjunction of three rules. These rules describe a positive feedback loop. Each iteration through this loop - each super-cosmic cycle - generates universes with greater complexity and greater value. The Initial Rule says that there exists an initial universe. This is the simplest of all possible universes. The initial universe is so simple that it has no actual predecessor - it is ultimate. The Successor Rule says that for every universe, for every way to make that universe more complex, there is a successor universe that more complex in that way. As universes become more complex, the machines running in those universes also become more complex. At some point, the operation of the Successor Rule generates our universe - a universe that contains human machines. The Limit Rule says that for every endless series of more complex universes, for every way to make the whole series more complex, there is a limit universe that is more complex in that way. After working this out in detail, we argue that the Algorithmic Hypothesis is the best explanation for the high complexity of our universe. The Algorithmic Hypothesis has a non-trivial positive degree of empirical support.

And the Algorithmic Hypothesis supports the revision theory of resurrection. Start with your own body. Your body is active in our universe. Any way to increase your health and happiness is some way to increase the intensity and length of your bodily activity. It is a way to increase the complexity of your bodily activity. Any way to increase your complexity is a way to increase the complexity of our universe. The Algorithmic Hypothesis says that for every way to make a universe more complex, there is a universe that is made more complex in that way. It follows that for every way to make your life more complex (that is, to make it better), there exists a universe in which your life is made more complex in that way. A new version of your body appears in the new universe and lives the new version of your life. Your new body is one of your resurrection counterparts (one of your better selves). You are resurrected. Of course, we have to define all this with much greater precision. And we do. But all we need to say right now is that the Algorithmic Hypothesis supports the RTR. Consequently, we have arrived at a resurrection theory that has some non-trivial positive degree of empirical support.

The World

We have defined a variety of increasingly inclusive systems of objects. Since there is a series of increasingly inclusive objects, it seems natural to posit a maximally inclusive system of objects. Accordingly, we say that the World is the maximally inclusive system of objects. But what does it mean to say that the World is maximally inclusive? One analysis says that the World is always bigger than you think it is: whenever you think you are talking about the whole World, you are mistaken; we are really only talking about an object that is in the World. Of course, we want a logical analysis of the maximality of the World. So we analyze this maximality using a kind of reflection principle: for any consistent theory T, if there is any accuracy to the thesis that T describes the whole World, then there is more accuracy to the thesis that T describes some proper part of the World. The World is therefore greater than any consistently describable part of the World. The reflection principle is a virtuous circle - it defines a positive feedback loop. This loop is self-starting and self-accelerating. It is a deep version of the Argument from Cyclical Renewal.

We said that the World is maximally inclusive. We don't have any further information about the World. So we define the contents of the World entirely in terms of inclusion. Inclusion is membership. We can assert some theory T of the World if and only if the only non-logical symbol in T is the membership symbol. On the assumption that every description of the World involves only membership, every theory of the World is some theory of sets. The World is filled with sets. On the assumption that the maximal inclusiveness of the World involves a virtuous circle, we argue that more comprehensive set theories have more accuracy. We therefore argue for a principle of plenitude. If this analysis is right, then the principle of plenitude entails that the World is the logically maximal iterative hierarchy of sets. It extends as far as consistency allows - out through all consistent large cardinals and proper classes. This hierarchy is V. Since sets are mathematical objects, the definition of V is a cyclical process of mathematical self-organization. Of course, we're only using the term process metaphorically. More literally, V is defined by a system of axioms. We use the axioms of von Neumann - Godel - Bernays class theory plus axioms for all consistently definable large cardinals.

For three reasons, we say the sets in V are possible objects. The first reason is formal. The sets in V are formal structures that can be instantiated by physical actualities. The second reason is that set theory is comprehensive. Possibility is equivalent to consistency, and every consistent theory has a set-theoretic model. No possible combination is missing from V. V is a plenum. The final reason is that the possible includes the infinite; but set theory is the only serious theory of infinity. We need infinity. Your series of resurrection bodies extends into the infinite. To talk about infinitely complex bodies, we need to use set theory. Since the sets in V are possible objects, the axioms that define V constitute the iterative theory of possibility. Given sets, we can build any consistently definable object. Given sets, we build numbers; given numbers, we build machines; given machines, we build networks of machines. Every closed network of machines is a possible universe. Since every possible closed network exists in V, all possible universes exist in V. Some of these networks are finitely complex universes while others are infinitely complex.

The iterative theory of possibility shows how the World acts logically on itself. The action of the World on itself fills the World with content. It fills the World with possible objects. These objects exist. So the action of the World on itself fills the World with being. A long tradition, going back to the classical Neoplatonists and Platonists, says that being is goodness. It is better to be than to not be. So any action that fills the World with being also fills it with goodness. But this ontological value is merely formal. It is not moral or ethical value. Moral value requires actuality. Only actual objects are morally good or morally evil. It is customary to think of actuality as a heightened or intensified state of existence. Assuming that actuality is an intensified state of possibility, our theory of actuality parallels our theory of possibility. It is an iterative theory of actuality.

We've already given three arguments for the iterative theory of actuality. These were the Cosmological Argument, the Fine Tuning Argument, and the Argument from the Will. On the basis of these arguments, we spell out the iterative theory of actuality in several steps. The first step is to define an improvement relation on possible universes. This is an ethical relation: if x is an improvement of y, then the value of x is greater than the value of y. The second step is to define the diagram or graph of the improvement relation. Given this graph, we articulate several axioms for the actualization of the universes in this graph. These axioms are based on the axioms for the iterative theory of possibility. These axioms define a positive feedback loop in which value is self-increasing. They define the cyclical process of cosmological self-organization. As before, the term process is merely figurative. The cosmological process runs within the process of mathematical self-organization. The cosmological process actualizes certain universes and leaves others as merely possible. It is an iterative process of revision that optimizes the complexities of universes. As universes become more complex, they become more filled with life and more perfect.

Three axioms define the system of actual universes. The initial axiom says that there exists a simplest actual universe. The simplest actual universe is self-actualizing. The successor axiom says that for any actual universe, and for any way to improve that universe, there exists a later actual universe that is improved in exactly that way. The limit axiom extends this logic to the infinite: for any endless series of improved universes, there exists a limit universe that is more perfect than every universe in that series. Cosmological self-organization rises through the transfinite. It makes a great branching tree of actual universes in a sky of merely possible universes. For precision, we spell out these axioms in terms of von Neumann - Godel - Bernays class theory. For each type of ordinal in that theory, we define a rule that associates that ordinal with a class of actual universes.

Cosmological self-organization entails biological perfection. For every universe, and for every body in that universe, any way to improve the life of that body is a way to improve the universe. Hence for every universe, for every body in that universe, and for every way to improve the life of that body, there is a resurrection body whose life is improved in exactly that way. The rules for cosmological self-organization entail that every possible body is resurrected in every possible way. Every body is the root of a branching tree of resurrections that rises through all finite levels of complexity and power to the infinite. All positive potentials of all possible organisms - human and non-human - are actualized in its tree. Resurrection is the perfection of all possible ways of life.

God

A long tradition says that God is maximally perfect: for any x, x is God if and only if (iff) x is maximally perfect. We agree that God is maximally perfect. And we understand this maximality in terms of absolute infinity: for any x, x is God iff x is absolutely infinitely perfect. But what does it mean to say that God is maximally perfect? We will argue that x is maximally perfect iff x is abstract, x is particular, x is self-representative, x is maximally inclusive, x is maximally powerful, and x is maximally good. Since we say that God is an abstract particular, we are not theists. We deny that God is concrete; we thereby deny that God participates in any spatial, temporal, or causal relations. Further, we deny that God has any mentality; God is not a person. Our theology is a platonic theology.

As it turns out, we have already defined a maximally perfect object. According to our previous arguments, the World is maximally perfect. The World is abstract; the World is a particular; the World is self-representative; the World is maximally inclusive; the World is maximally powerful; and the World is maximally good. The World has all the divine attributes. We want to focus on the maximal power and goodness of the World.

We argued that the World acts on itself in two ways. The first way that the World acts on itself is spelled out in the iterative theory of possibility. According to this first way, the World fills itself with being. It fills itself with all possible objects, including all possible universes. And we said that whenever the action of the World on itself entails that some object is in the World, the World creates that object. It follows that the World creates all possible objects. The creative power of the World is logically maximal.

The second way that the World acts on itself is spelled out in the iterative theory of actuality. According to this second way, the World fills itself with value. Value is actuality. By acting on itself, the World actualizes the best system of possible universes. These become actual universes. Consequently, the World contains a system of actual universes. The system of actual universes is closed under the improvement relation. All positive potentials of all possible living things are actualized in the system of actual universes. All things are perfected by the action of the World on itself. And we said that whenever the action of the World on itself entails that some object is actual in the World, then the World actualizes that object. The World actualizes every object in the best system of possible objects. The benevolence of the World is logically maximal.

We argued that the World is maximally perfect. Given the premise that x is God if and only if x is maximally perfect it follows that the World is God. Obviously, the World is not a person. The World has no mind and the World is not any concrete object. The view that the World is God is not theism. On the contrary, it is pantheism. A pantheist says that there is some maximally-inclusive unity and that this maximally inclusive unity is God. Pantheism is consistent with our best science. It is ethically positive. Pantheism is highly rational. But it is also religious. The pantheistic God is holy and worthy of worship.

Conclusion

We have argued for the revision theory of resurrection (the RTR). The RTR has several advantages over all competing theories of life after death. The first advantage of the RTR is that it is consistent with scientific naturalism regarding our universe. It does not violate natural laws. It requires neither miracles nor ghosts. The second advantage is that the RTR is supported by empirical arguments. The RTR has some explanatory power. The RTR is a part of the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing and for why our universe has some of the features that it has. The third advantage is that the RTR is ethically sound. It entails that all positive potentials of all possible living things will ultimately be realized somewhere in the World. All things tend towards and reach perfection. The fourth advantage is that the RTR makes a serious effort to clearly and precisely describe the afterlife. It defines a sequence of types of increasingly powerful resurrection bodies. It shows how we can reach infinite perfection. Finally, the RTR is embedded in a rational theology. This theology is a modernized version of classical neoplatonism. Since it has all these advantages, we believe the revision theory of resurrection is the best theory of immortality on the market today.