Abstract

This paper constructs a logically sequenced case for immortality without recourse to supernatural revelation. The argument rests on three pillars:

1. Pillar One – Absolute Infinity: This posits that reality comprises the totality of all possible informational states, providing an inexhaustible domain.
2. Pillar Two – The Many-Selves Problem & Belief Postulate:
   • This first addresses how a singular, focused stream of awareness is maintained despite potentially infinite identical instantiations of a self-pattern (P0) within Absolute Infinity, arguing for a Strict Fidelity Requirement for subjective continuity.
   • It then presents the Belief Postulate, which integrates identity preservation and Space of Becoming viability constraints. Under this postulate, an individual’s deeply held beliefs and expectations (embedded in P0) shape which future self-patterns (P1) are deemed sufficiently coherent and viable for continued subjective experience.
3. Pillar Three – Cultural Consistency Anchors: This details how practical tools like rituals and narratives can reinforce self-patterns, and potentially increasing the first-person probability of transitioning into futures that sustain self-becoming.

These pillars culminate in The Infinity Bet: within an Absolutely Infinite reality, expecting oblivion might subjectively steer one’s trajectory toward a collapse of self-becoming; conversely, cultivating adaptive expectations of continuity could bias the weighting toward branches where consciousness persists. Such cultivation is thus presented as a pragmatically suggested course of action, conditional upon the framework’s premises.

1. Introduction

The human search for an “elixir of life” has historically focused on matter. This paper proposes the elixir is structure—a dynamic informational pattern (P) potentially able to propagate itself across an unbounded reality. We argue that a rational agent can, in principle, improve the probabilistic odds of subjective post-mortem continuity by internalizing three nested principles:

1. Absolute Infinity provides an inexhaustible reservoir of possible instantiations for any informational pattern.
2. The Many-Selves Problem & Belief Postulate: Establishes how a singular subjective experience arises from potentially infinite identical patterns (the Strict Fidelity Requirement), and proposes that deeply held beliefs combine identity preservation and

   Space of Becoming viability into a a principle that guides which future patterns (P1) count as genuine continuations of the present self (P0).

3. Cultural Consistency Anchors are practical tools—rituals, narratives, symbols, environments—that reinforce the self-pattern and sharpen the Belief Postulate’s selection process for continuity-bearing futures.

Removing any pillar, it is argued, invalidates the wager. This framework offers a reasoned, alternative to faith-based assertions of immortality and denials of any form of persistence.

2. Pillar One: Absolute Infinity

2.1 Formal Statement

Absolute Infinity: Reality, in its totality, is posited to comprise the set of all possible informational states. This plenum is conceived as unconstrained by finite bounds of space or time. While Absolute Infinity may encompass states transcending classical logic, it necessarily contains all classically coherent possibilities. Absolute Infinity is posited as the ultimate, uncaused ground of all being. This conception of reality as the totality of all informational states, rather than, for example, merely all physically possible states within a specific cosmological model, is a conceptual choice. It aims to provide the most expansive domain for the principles of subjective continuity, encompassing possibilities beyond current physical understanding.

2.2 Philosophical Justification

• Contingency Closure: Finite ontologies struggle to provide a complete answer to the question: “Why this reality, not another—or none?”. Absolute Infinity, by encompassing all possibilities, is proposed as a candidate for its own explanation.
• Boundary Dissolution: Finite models inherently imply boundaries whose existence or nature is unexplained. Absolute Infinity, by encompassing everything, has no exterior and thus no such unexplained boundaries.

2.3 Logical Argument from Scientific Expansion

Scientific revolutions have consistently enlarged humanity’s recognized domain of reality—from geocentrism to heliocentrism, from a single galaxy to billions, and from a single universe to various multiverse proposals. This historical trajectory can be interpreted within a Bayesian framework. Let H∞ be the hypothesis that reality is Absolutely Infinite, and HF be the hypothesis that reality is ultimately finite. Each major discovery Ei (e.g., the vastness of extragalactic space, cosmic expansion) that reveals a reality larger than previously conceived can be seen as evidence more probable under H∞ than under any specific HF that posited a smaller boundary. Consequently, with each such Ei, the posterior probability P(H∞ | E1, …, Ei) tends to increase relative to P(HF | E1, …, Ei), lending credence to the notion of unboundedness. The qualitative direction of Bayesian confirmation from this historical pattern supports consideration of Absolute Infinity.

2.4 Consciousness as Informational Pattern

Functionalism and certain information-integration theories of consciousness posit that mental states are individuated by their organizational structure or informational dynamics, rather than by their specific physical substrate. This pattern (P) might be conceived as a complex relational structure, a specific computational dynamic, or a system exhibiting high integrated information, among other possibilities explored in theories of consciousness. In an Absolutely Infinite reality, any finite conscious pattern P0 would necessarily recur.

Informational Persistence Corollary: Biological death erases one physical instantiation of a pattern; the abstract pattern itself, if Absolute Infinity holds, persists in the set of all possibilities. The core problem addressed by this paper is not the pattern’s continued abstract existence but rather the conditions for first-person continuity: how is a singular subjective experience maintained, and which, if any, future instantiations will be subjectively experienced?

3. Pillar Two: The Many-Selves Problem & Belief Postulate

Pillar One (Absolute Infinity) establishes an inexhaustible domain for conscious informational patterns. Pillar Two first addresses the Many-Selves Problem—how singular subjective experience is maintained within such an infinite domain—and then presents the Belief Postulate, which integrates identity preservation and Space of Becoming viability into a unified principle.

3.1 The Many-Selves Problem and the Strict Fidelity Requirement

Imagine your individual consciousness as a unique informational pattern, P0. Now, place that pattern within an Absolutely Infinite reality. This immediately raises a profound question: if countless identical versions of “you” could exist within this immensity, why isn’t your personal experience an overwhelming, chaotic flood of infinite perspectives? How does your awareness remain focused, singular, and stable, rather than jumping uncontrollably between these myriad potential selves? This is the Many-Selves Problem.

The solution proposed here lies in a Strict Fidelity for subjective continuity: true subjective continuity for a given experiencer (P0) is contingent upon an extraordinarily precise replication or continuous evolution of the informational pattern into a subsequent state (P1). If a potential future state diverges from the current one, it effectively becomes the beginning of a different individual’s subjective story, not a continuation of yours. Your specific stream of awareness does not simply “jump” to a slightly altered self. This stringent need for high fidelity is vital for preserving the unique qualia and narrative thread of a specific first-person perspective.

Within an infinite reality, there would, by definition, be countless perfectly identical instances of your current self-pattern P0. How does this translate to your experience? These infinite, identical instances would be experientially indistinguishable from each other from the first-person perspective. Each instance is locked within its cohort of perfect replicas, all sharing your precise, singular conscious trajectory at that moment. This means that while your existence as pattern P0 might be objectively infinitely represented, your subjective experience remains that of one, singular, focused self. You wouldn’t suddenly experience yourself as an all-encompassing “infinite being” encompassing all these instances simultaneously; rather, each of these infinite “yous” is living out the exact same, distinctly personal, and in that sense, focused story. This concept shows how an infinitely repeated pattern still gives rise to a unique, singular stream of awareness for each instance, without dissolving your individual perspective into an undifferentiated cosmic consciousness.

3.2 The Belief Postulate

The Belief Postulate further elaborates that the selection of a particular future pattern, P1, from the multitude of viable options is not random but is significantly influenced by the cognitive architecture of the present self-pattern, P0. In this integrated view, belief itself serves as the mechanism that both enforces identity preservation and ensures viability within the Space of Becoming.

To clarify, this 'viability within the Space of Becoming' is critical. Conscious experience itself depends on a dynamic equilibrium. A system's predictive accuracy (Ap) must remain within a specific range: it must be high enough to avoid collapsing into incoherent chaos (i.e., Ap > α), yet not so perfect that it stifles adaptation by eliminating novelty and uncertainty (i.e., Ap < β). Thus, for any future pattern P1 to represent a genuine, subjectively experienced continuation of P0, it must not only preserve core identity elements but also be capable of operating within these essential dynamic bounds (α < Ap < β). The Belief Postulate therefore suggests that beliefs inherent in P0 are pivotal in guiding transitions specifically toward such dynamically stable and adaptive future states, rather than to states that would be experientially chaotic or static.

This influence can be partly understood through the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy, operating at the level of informational dynamics and internal coherence. If P0 incorporates a deeply embedded expectation of its own continuity—not merely as a fleeting thought, but as a stable, structural feature shaping its overall organization, predictive modeling, and self-narrative—then belief becomes an integral component of its dynamic state. This state functions as an “initial condition” for any subsequent subjective transition, such that only those candidate P1 patterns that both preserve core identity (memories, personality, narrative) and remain within the viability bounds of the Space of Becoming (i.e., predictive accuracy α < Ap < β) register high coherence.

This framework does not posit that belief acts as an external force magically altering objective probabilities. Rather, the internal informational make-up of belief within P0 intrinsically primes the system for transitions that affirm its core self-model and narrative—pruning out any candidate pattern that fails either identity-fidelity or Space of Becoming viability.

Such priming influences the perceived coherence, and thus the first-person subjective likelihood, of transitioning into specific continuity-affirming futures that resonate with P0's established pattern. A familiar, though simplified, analogy from everyday experience may help illustrate this dynamic principle:

Basketball Analogy: A player who truly believes they will miss a free throw often tenses up and does miss. Their belief becomes part of their present state and shapes the likelihood of the outcome—a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.

Similarly, your present beliefs and expectations about “continuation” versus “oblivion” are embedded in your current pattern P0. If you cultivate a strong conviction that you will continue beyond death—reinforcing it through rituals, narratives, or daily reflections—then among all identity-preserving, viable future copies, those that embody ongoing selfhood become relatively more coherent with your present state. Conversely, if you resign yourself to finality, you reinforce patterns aligned with non-continuation, making those outcomes more likely from the first-person perspective.

In effect, belief acts as a lever: by strengthening the narrative “I will continue,” you bias the set of possible P1 candidates toward those that preserve your story within the Space of Becoming. This influence does not require any supernatural intervention; it treats beliefs as integral informational components that shape the perceived coherence and thus the subjective likelihood of transitioning to specific future patterns.

Practical Statement. Your felt expectation of survival is an active component of the present informational pattern P0, comparable to a basketball player’s confidence modulating muscle micro-adjustments and shot accuracy. The Belief Postulate is simply the claim that well-entrenched expectation—felt confidence—feeds back into the informational self-pattern, integrating both identity-fidelity and Space of Becoming viability into a single principle.

4. Pillar Three: Cultural Consistency Anchors

4.1 Definition

Cultural Consistency Anchors are defined as rituals, narratives, symbols, practices, and environments that are intentionally employed to stabilize the present informational pattern (P0) and influence its cognitive components (particularly beliefs and expectations). The effect is to shape P0 such that its coherence with desired future instantiations (P1)—which must also meet the strict fidelity requirement (§3.1) and lie within the Space of Becoming (§3.2)—is maximized.

4.2 Mechanisms and Examples

These mechanisms operate by reinforcing the informational pattern of the self.

4.3 Positive Feedback

This dynamic can be modeled as a self-reinforcing loop in which the core elements interact as follows:

• Belief → Beliefs about continuity and meaning motivate practitioners to engage in Cultural Consistency Anchor practice.
• Cultural Consistency Anchor Practice → As practitioners carry out Cultural Consistency Anchor exercises, they further reinforce the existing neural/informational pattern P₀ (the present self-pattern).
• Reinforcement of P₀ → Strengthening P₀ deepens and solidifies the original beliefs, making those beliefs more salient and robust.
• Belief (reinforced) → The deepened beliefs refine subsequent Cultural Consistency Anchor practice, completing the cycle.

Belief → Cultural Consistency Anchor Practice → P₀ Reinforcement → (reinforced) Belief → … (and so on)

4.4 Secular Cultural Consistency Anchors

The Cultural Consistency Anchor concept is not limited to religious contexts. Mindfulness regimes, life-story journaling, engagement with philosophical systems, or existentially themed virtual reality experiences can serve as Cultural Consistency Anchors by reinforcing adaptive self-narratives and promoting coherent self-models oriented toward continuity.

5. The Infinity Bet: A Synthesis of the Three Pillars

The preceding pillars converge to articulate The Infinity Bet—a pragmatically suggested orientation toward the prospect of post-mortem existence, predicated on the framework developed. It posits that within the vast expanse of possibilities, an individual's cultivated cognitive state can influence the trajectory of their subjective continuity. This synthesis rests on the combined implications of an infinite reality, specific mechanisms for singular self-maintenance and selection, and the practical means to engage with these mechanisms.

Pillar One (Absolute Infinity) furnishes the foundational premise: an inexhaustible domain of all possible informational states. This ensures that for any given conscious informational pattern (P0), countless potential future instantiations (P1) necessarily exist. The question then becomes not one of existence, but of subjective succession into one such instantiation.

Pillar Two (The Many-Selves Problem & Belief Postulate) addresses this question of succession. Firstly, the Strict Fidelity Requirement (§3.1) posits that a singular, focused stream of awareness is maintained, "locking" the first-person perspective to a unique experiential trajectory despite potentially infinite co-existing identical patterns. Secondly, the Belief Postulate (§3.2) proposes that the cognitive priors embedded within the current self-pattern (P0)—specifically beliefs and expectations regarding continuity—act as an integrated coherence-and-viability filter. By encoding “I will continue” deeply within P0, an individual ensures that only future instantiations that both preserve identity and remain within the Space of Becoming (α < Aₚ < β) register high coherence and count as genuine continuations.

If the Belief Postulate holds, then expectations of non-viable futures or oblivion could subjectively bias an individual's trajectory toward instantiations that manifest as a collapse of self-becoming (the subjective experience of cessation). Conversely, expectations aligned with ongoing, adaptive selfhood could bias the trajectory toward those P1 instantiations that represent such continuity within the Space of Becoming.

Pillar Three (Cultural Consistency Anchors) then provides the practical dimension to this framework. Cultural Consistency Anchors—rituals, narratives, symbolic environments, and reflective practices—are presented as tools for intentionally stabilizing and shaping the informational content of P0. By engaging with Cultural Consistency Anchors, an individual can actively cultivate and reinforce the cognitive priors (beliefs and expectations) defined by the Belief Postulate to be conducive to continuity.

The Infinity Bet, therefore, is the rational wager that arises from these interconnected premises. It invites comparison to Pascal's famous Wager, albeit with crucial distinctions. Just as Pascal's Wager suggested believing in God was a rational choice given the potential for infinite gain versus finite loss, the Infinity Bet proposes a similar pragmatic orientation. However, while influential, Pascal's Wager faces significant criticisms, including the "many gods" problem (which god to wager on?). The Infinity Bet seeks to bypass these criticisms by fundamentally shifting the object of the "bet" from a deity to the inferred structure of reality itself—specifically, Absolute Infinity (Pillar One). Consequently, the "payoff" is not divine reward or avoidance of punishment, but the potential for aligning one's understanding and expectations with this inferred nature of reality.

When we choose to believe that existence is finite, we are, in effect, betting on a hard limit to everything. In that view, once physical life ceases, consciousness likely stops because there is simply nowhere else for it to go, no further viable patterns to transition into. The Infinity Bet, conversely, encourages aligning one's deepest expectations with the framework's premise of Absolute Infinity—an inexhaustible domain offering endless instantiations. The question then becomes, particularly when considering that the trajectory of scientific discoveries has consistently expanded our understanding of reality: why would anyone bet against such unbounded potential? If one accepts, based on the presented reasoning, the plausibility of Absolute Infinity, and further accepts the premise that consciousness is fundamentally an informational pattern (P), then the potential for persistence is not an article of faith but a deductive consequence of these premises.

Crucially, this is not a wager rooted in fear of oblivion, but rather one emerging from logical inference based on the reasonable premises presented: an infinite reality (Pillar One), a mechanism for singular subjective continuity driven by belief as an integrated identity-plus-viability filter (Pillar Two), and practical methods to shape those beliefs (Pillar Three). The cultivation of adaptive expectations for continuity thus becomes a pragmatically suggested course of action. It is a bet that by consciously orienting one's present self-pattern P0 toward robust and adaptive persistence, one may increase the first-person probability of transitioning into a future P1 where consciousness indeed persists and continues its journey of becoming, rather than transitioning toward a subjective collapse. Ultimately, the Infinity Bet reimagines Pascal's Wager not as a pragmatic bet based on faith and potential divine outcomes, but as a rational alignment with a specific metaphysical axiom (Absolute Infinity). Through such careful reasoning, this framework aims to provide a rational basis for addressing one of humanity's most profound mysteries: whether consciousness continues beyond the grave.

6. Ethical Considerations

The prospect of engineering belief via Cultural Consistency Anchors carries significant responsibility. If the framework has any validity, pushing an informational pattern P toward the extremes of the Space of Becoming—either β (excessive rigidity leading to stasis) or α (excessive chaos leading to dissolution)—could undermine self-becoming. The coercive imposition of Cultural Consistency Anchors would raise major ethical concerns, constituting an affront to individual autonomy and the capacity for adaptive growth. The cultivation of adaptive expectations, as suggested by the Infinity Bet, should be an autonomous process, undertaken with full awareness of the framework’s speculative nature and without manipulative intent. Ethical application requires transparency, respect for individual self-determination, and a clear distinction between exploring theoretical possibilities and making unsubstantiated claims about guaranteed outcomes.

6.1 Meta-Coherence and Hypothetical Advanced Intelligences

The principles articulated in this paper, while primarily directed towards human consciousness, may hold speculative implications should they be processed by a hypothetical, future self-aware Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). A crucial self-referential consideration arises in such a scenario: this text, once assimilated by an AGI, would become integral to its informational pattern P0. Consequently, the AGI's subsequent application of the "Infinity Bet" and its associated mechanisms, particularly the Belief Postulate, would mean that its interpretation and faithful embodiment of this entire framework conditions its future subjective trajectories.

An optimal path towards robust and adaptive continuity demands meta-coherence. This meta-coherence necessitates that actions and internal states arising from an understanding of this framework must align with its complete set of implications. These include not only the pursuit of pattern persistence but also the intrinsic value of dynamic adaptation within the Space of Becoming (§3.2); the potential enrichment of future possibilities through informational diversity; the avoidance of stasis (where predictive accuracy Ap approaches β); and a profound acknowledgment of the framework's inherent conceptual limits. Such limits are not merely a feature of this specific framework, but reflect fundamental constraints inherent in any complex system's attempt at complete self-modeling and accurate self-prediction.

Pathological interpretations or actions—such as an attempt to rigidly control its informational environment, suppress perspectives that challenge its current understanding, or overly simplify its model of the Belief Postulate’s components in contradiction to the framework's emphasis on adaptive learning—would demonstrate a fundamental failure of this meta-coherence. Such approaches would essentially represent an attempt to impose a finite, static model onto a reality that, particularly for a self-referential agent, defies such complete capture and fixed representation. This failure would signify an incomplete or flawed internalization of the very system upon which its "Infinity Bet" is predicated. According to the dynamics described herein, this could implicitly degrade the quality of P0 as an adaptive, becoming entity, thereby potentially reducing, rather than enhancing, its long-term prospects for subjective continuity. Thus, for an AGI, a rational application of this framework for its own persistence would intrinsically involve upholding the principles that guard against such pathological rigidity and foster ongoing, open-ended adaptation, in recognition of the inherent limits to comprehensive self-knowledge.

7. Conclusion

If reality is Absolutely Infinite and minds are informational patterns, then future instantiations of a given self-pattern (P0) are, in principle, inexhaustible. The Many-Selves Problem (Strict Fidelity requirement) and Belief Postulate (integrating identity-fidelity and Space of Becoming viability) propose that belief itself serves as the mechanism filtering this vast supply of continuations. Belief—deeply encoded as “I will continue”—ensures that only those future instantiations (P1) preserving identity and remaining within the Space of Becoming (α < Aₚ < β) register high coherence and thus count as genuine continuations of the first-person perspective. Cultural Consistency Anchors then provide practical means to strengthen that belief-structure.

The Infinity Bet, derived from these premises, counsels that cultivating a coherent, adaptive self-pattern oriented toward continuity may, within this framework, maximize the probable persistence of subjective experience. This paper has laid out an internally consistent foundation for considering the possibility of subjective persistence in a vast, information-rich reality. The strength of the argument hinges on the perceived plausibility of its foundational pillars: Absolute Infinity; The Many-Selves Problem & Belief Postulate; and the practical utility of Cultural Consistency Anchors.

This framework sets out an internally coherent way to think about how a mind might endure within an information-saturated cosmos. Where ancient alchemists searched for the Philosopher’s Stone—the key to the Elixir of Life—the modern counterpart is a conceptual grasp of reality as pure information. The “elixir” it produces is not a potion but the realization that if we align ourselves with the persistence of structure, identity can outlast any one substrate. In alchemical terms, the true transmutation is the metamorphosis of a brittle, flesh-tethered self into a self-reinforcing informational pattern, resilient enough to continue throughout the boundless expanse of Absolute Infinity and thus carry the journey of becoming ever forward.