The difference is that it requires a change to the laws of physics as we know them for mock airstrips and antennas made of bamboo to work
Not in the knowledge of those who used to build them. Well, technically they didn’t have a concept of “laws of physics”, but obviously they had a system of epistemic beliefs which had to take into account the undeniable observation that aeroplanes full of goods appeared at some point. These people didn’t really understand the phenomenon, but it was very emotionally relevant to them, hence they tried to elicit it using an irrational, ritualistic, approach.
it requires a change to the laws of physics as we know them for cryonic preservation of information to not work.
This statement is logically unsupported:
At the current state of knowledge, we can’t prove that the known laws of physics make cryonics impossible, much like we can’t prove that they make many kinds of medical snake oil, including the literal snake oil, impossible (*).
This however, doesn’t imply that we can prove that the known laws of physics make cryonics possible. ”We didn’t find a proof that X is inconsistent with Y” =/=> “There is a proof that X is consistent with Y”
Specifically, cryopreservation is obviously not a mechanically reversible process, therefore it doesn’t preserve all the physical information in the brain. The question is whether it preserves the information which is relevant to the individual psychology of the person, the “self”. Neurobiologists and cryobiologists, the people who actually know what they are talking about, seem to be skeptical about it. It is possible that cryonics might end up working, but if it doesn’t it certainly doesn’t imply that we need to update the known laws of physics.
Cryonicists might not know the exact details or best approach to take, but they’re at least starting from a platform of ‘physics allows this’.
No, they start from a platform of ‘you can’t prove that this doesn’t work’. Which is much like ‘you can’t prove that there is no god’, or ‘you can’t prove that the cargo planes will not land on my mock airstrip’.
I also have a lot of difficulty blaming them for being non-experts, given the social stigmas around cryonics and death. Expect that to change over the coming decades.
Cryonics is 50 years old. During all this time it has never gained substantial acceptance among domain experts. In fact, actual cryobiologists went from mildly sympathetic towards cryonics to outright critical. It seems to me that the most likely explanation for the alleged social stigma is that cryonics has earned a reputation of being a shady and questionable business run by people who, at best, don’t know what they are doing, and at worst, are deliberately scamming gullible folks.
(* Hell, strictly speaking we can’t even prove that the laws of physics imply that cargo cults don’t work!)
I believe you’ve largely missed the point. Nothing in my post was about proving anything; rather, my point was that the evidencial priors for these two fields are vastly, vastly different. Both cryonics and bamboo antennas are ‘unproven’, as are the existence of gravity, the sun, you, and invisible pink unicorns. However, the priors for these things are not the same.
Bamboo antennas, homeopathy, and medical snake oil have large priors against them, those priors being that the laws of physics directly contradict thier functioning. The laws of physics must be changed to allow them to work.
Cryonics on the other hand, is not crippled by this. The laws of physics as we know them allow it and would have to be modified to prevent cryonics from working.
This is an extremely important, extremely large difference. It is not a minor barrier, it is not a minor hurdle. The laws of physics are very well understood, supported by a huge quantity of experimental evidence, and extremely comprehensive. Anything that requires updates or modifications to those laws by default has an extremely high burden of proof, one orders upon orders of magnitude higher than things which do not require changes to those laws.
Bamboo antennas, homeopathy, and medical snake oil have large priors against them, those priors being that the laws of physics directly contradict thier functioning. The laws of physics must be changed to allow them to work.
That’s true for bamboo antennas and homeopathy, although it wasn’t true w.r.t. the epistemic beliefs of those who originally proposed them. It isn’t however true for snake oil. There is nothing in the laws of physics that allows us to claim that snake oil doesn’t have curative properties, or that a weird stem cell concoction doesn’t cure neurodegenerative diseases, and so on. Nevertheless, we don’t believe that these things work because the burden of evidence is on the proponents, and the proponents failed to substantiate their claim of effectiveness.
Cryonics is exactly in the same class as these unproven medical procedures.
Cryonics on the other hand, is not crippled by this. The laws of physics as we know them allow it and would have to be modified to prevent cryonics from working.
The claim that the law of physics as we know would have to be changed to prevent cryonics from working is factually false. I challenge you to substantiate it.
I consider cryonics to be the last, desperate hope for living again, longer and better, when there is no belief in the afterlife to comfort you and yours in your last moments. Even if the odds are potentially worse than winning a lottery, the alternative of losing one’s precious self forever is still infinitely worse for many people (and for a certain Botoxed supervillain), sometimes no matter the cost.
Even if the odds are potentially worse than winning a lottery, the alternative of losing one’s precious self forever is still infinitely worse for many people (and for a certain Botoxed supervillain), sometimes no matter the cost.
I assume that these people do not “pray to God for salvation”, because the probability of it working out is too low. Then what is the lowest probability of cryonics working that they accept? Or otherwise, do they also give money to a Pascalian mugger?
I wonder how people who assign vast amounts of value to their own life make every day decisions. What activities are instrumentally rational? Are they using protective gear when climbing the stairs?
This is a pretty silly strawman. Consider steelmanning, see where you get. If you are still unable to construct a charitable interpretation after a while, ask again.
The charitable interpretation is, of course, that these people overestimate the chances of cryonics working due to wishful thinking. In their daily lives they are probably approximately as rational as anybody else, including people who pray God for salvation.
Not in the knowledge of those who used to build them. Well, technically they didn’t have a concept of “laws of physics”, but obviously they had a system of epistemic beliefs which had to take into account the undeniable observation that aeroplanes full of goods appeared at some point.
These people didn’t really understand the phenomenon, but it was very emotionally relevant to them, hence they tried to elicit it using an irrational, ritualistic, approach.
This statement is logically unsupported:
At the current state of knowledge, we can’t prove that the known laws of physics make cryonics impossible, much like we can’t prove that they make many kinds of medical snake oil, including the literal snake oil, impossible (*). This however, doesn’t imply that we can prove that the known laws of physics make cryonics possible.
”We didn’t find a proof that X is inconsistent with Y” =/=> “There is a proof that X is consistent with Y”
Specifically, cryopreservation is obviously not a mechanically reversible process, therefore it doesn’t preserve all the physical information in the brain.
The question is whether it preserves the information which is relevant to the individual psychology of the person, the “self”.
Neurobiologists and cryobiologists, the people who actually know what they are talking about, seem to be skeptical about it.
It is possible that cryonics might end up working, but if it doesn’t it certainly doesn’t imply that we need to update the known laws of physics.
No, they start from a platform of ‘you can’t prove that this doesn’t work’. Which is much like ‘you can’t prove that there is no god’, or ‘you can’t prove that the cargo planes will not land on my mock airstrip’.
Cryonics is 50 years old. During all this time it has never gained substantial acceptance among domain experts. In fact, actual cryobiologists went from mildly sympathetic towards cryonics to outright critical.
It seems to me that the most likely explanation for the alleged social stigma is that cryonics has earned a reputation of being a shady and questionable business run by people who, at best, don’t know what they are doing, and at worst, are deliberately scamming gullible folks.
(* Hell, strictly speaking we can’t even prove that the laws of physics imply that cargo cults don’t work!)
I believe you’ve largely missed the point. Nothing in my post was about proving anything; rather, my point was that the evidencial priors for these two fields are vastly, vastly different. Both cryonics and bamboo antennas are ‘unproven’, as are the existence of gravity, the sun, you, and invisible pink unicorns. However, the priors for these things are not the same.
Bamboo antennas, homeopathy, and medical snake oil have large priors against them, those priors being that the laws of physics directly contradict thier functioning. The laws of physics must be changed to allow them to work.
Cryonics on the other hand, is not crippled by this. The laws of physics as we know them allow it and would have to be modified to prevent cryonics from working.
This is an extremely important, extremely large difference. It is not a minor barrier, it is not a minor hurdle. The laws of physics are very well understood, supported by a huge quantity of experimental evidence, and extremely comprehensive. Anything that requires updates or modifications to those laws by default has an extremely high burden of proof, one orders upon orders of magnitude higher than things which do not require changes to those laws.
That’s true for bamboo antennas and homeopathy, although it wasn’t true w.r.t. the epistemic beliefs of those who originally proposed them.
It isn’t however true for snake oil. There is nothing in the laws of physics that allows us to claim that snake oil doesn’t have curative properties, or that a weird stem cell concoction doesn’t cure neurodegenerative diseases, and so on.
Nevertheless, we don’t believe that these things work because the burden of evidence is on the proponents, and the proponents failed to substantiate their claim of effectiveness.
Cryonics is exactly in the same class as these unproven medical procedures.
The claim that the law of physics as we know would have to be changed to prevent cryonics from working is factually false. I challenge you to substantiate it.
I consider cryonics to be the last, desperate hope for living again, longer and better, when there is no belief in the afterlife to comfort you and yours in your last moments. Even if the odds are potentially worse than winning a lottery, the alternative of losing one’s precious self forever is still infinitely worse for many people (and for a certain Botoxed supervillain), sometimes no matter the cost.
I assume that these people do not “pray to God for salvation”, because the probability of it working out is too low. Then what is the lowest probability of cryonics working that they accept? Or otherwise, do they also give money to a Pascalian mugger?
I wonder how people who assign vast amounts of value to their own life make every day decisions. What activities are instrumentally rational? Are they using protective gear when climbing the stairs?
This is a pretty silly strawman. Consider steelmanning, see where you get. If you are still unable to construct a charitable interpretation after a while, ask again.
The charitable interpretation is, of course, that these people overestimate the chances of cryonics working due to wishful thinking. In their daily lives they are probably approximately as rational as anybody else, including people who pray God for salvation.
Sure. Much like building a mock airstrip has a non-zero chance of attracting a cargo aeroplane.
All engines are out! Mayday! Mayday!
Damn! We are going to crash in the jungle!
Hey what is that? An airstrip! Prepare to emergency landing!