1) Materialism is correct 2) Identity encoded in structure 3) Favorable conditions for suspension 4) Suspension preserves enough information 5) Mishap-free storage 6) Cryonics organization survives 7) Sufficient social stability 8) Cryonics is continuously legal 9) Nanotechnology is physically possible 10) Nanotechnology is perfected 11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic 12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough” 13) Cryonic revival is permitted 14) The social problem
Depending on your probabilities for these variables, the estimation of the overall probability that cryonics will work overall will vary.
Even 0.2% seems quite optimistic to me. Without going into detail, anything from 3-8 seems like it could be 10% or lower and 12-14 seem nearly impossible to estimate. I wouldn’t be surprised to find my personal estimate below one in a million.
Yeah. For your interest, here are the calculations from Alcor:
Steve Harris, MD:
1) Materialism is correct: 0.95-0.99 2) Identity encoded in structure: 0.95-0.99 3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95 4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90 5) Mishap-free storage: 0.95-0.99 6) Cryonics organization survives: 0.20-0.60 7) Sufficient social stability: 0.70-0.90 8) Cryonics is continuously legal: 0.70-0.90 9) Nanotechnology is physically possible: 0.90-0.98 10) Nanotechnology is perfected: 0.95-0.98 11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic: 0.20-0.50 12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”: 0.85-0.95 13) Cryonic revival is permitted: 0.50-0.80 The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.008-0.18 Technologically, will cryonics work? 0.29-0.81 Overall, will it work? 0.002-0.15
That is, a 0.2-15% probability that cyronics works overall.
Mike Perry, PhD:
Note: his calculation lumps 7 of the 13 parameters as ‘the social problem’ which he calls condition n.
1) Materialism is correct 1.00-1.00 2) Identity encoded in structure: 1.00-1.00 3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95 4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90 5) Mishap-free storage: 0.90-0.99 6) Cryonics organization survives: n-n 7) Sufficient social stability n-n 8) Cryonics is continuously legal n-n 9) Nanotechnology is physically possible 1-1 10) Nanotechnology is perfected n-n 11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic n-n 12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough” n-n 13) Cryonic revival is permitted n-n The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.39-0.86 Technologically, will it work? 0.34-0.89 Overall, will it work? 0.13-0.77
That is, a 13-77% probability that cyronics works overall.
Given stories I’ve heard about cryonics orgs, I’d put 10-50% on 5. Given my impression of neuroscience, I’d put 4 at 25-75%.
Given that I’m more pessimistic in general, I’d put an addition 2x penalty on my skepticism of their other guesses.
That puts me around 0.01%-20% spread, or one in ten thousand lower bound, which is better than I expected. If I was convinced that a cryo org was actually a responsible business that would be enough for me to try to make it happen.
Yes—it’s hard to perform the calculations and end up with a high probability that cryonics works.
I think cryonics overall is much less feasible than many Less Wrongers tend to assume. Overall, I think anti-aging has a much higher chance of working to keep us alive much longer than cryonics does.
Hi Gerald,
In the original article, I linked to Alcor’s calculation of the probability that cryonics works. It ranges from 0.2-77% and this calculation is based on the 14 variables below:
1) Materialism is correct
2) Identity encoded in structure
3) Favorable conditions for suspension
4) Suspension preserves enough information
5) Mishap-free storage
6) Cryonics organization survives
7) Sufficient social stability
8) Cryonics is continuously legal
9) Nanotechnology is physically possible
10) Nanotechnology is perfected
11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic
12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”
13) Cryonic revival is permitted
14) The social problem
Depending on your probabilities for these variables, the estimation of the overall probability that cryonics will work overall will vary.
Even 0.2% seems quite optimistic to me. Without going into detail, anything from 3-8 seems like it could be 10% or lower and 12-14 seem nearly impossible to estimate. I wouldn’t be surprised to find my personal estimate below one in a million.
Yeah. For your interest, here are the calculations from Alcor:
Steve Harris, MD:
1) Materialism is correct: 0.95-0.99
2) Identity encoded in structure: 0.95-0.99
3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95
4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90
5) Mishap-free storage: 0.95-0.99
6) Cryonics organization survives: 0.20-0.60
7) Sufficient social stability: 0.70-0.90
8) Cryonics is continuously legal: 0.70-0.90
9) Nanotechnology is physically possible: 0.90-0.98
10) Nanotechnology is perfected: 0.95-0.98
11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic: 0.20-0.50
12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”: 0.85-0.95
13) Cryonic revival is permitted: 0.50-0.80
The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.008-0.18
Technologically, will cryonics work? 0.29-0.81
Overall, will it work? 0.002-0.15
That is, a 0.2-15% probability that cyronics works overall.
Mike Perry, PhD:
Note: his calculation lumps 7 of the 13 parameters as ‘the social problem’ which he calls condition n.
1) Materialism is correct 1.00-1.00
2) Identity encoded in structure: 1.00-1.00
3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95
4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90
5) Mishap-free storage: 0.90-0.99
6) Cryonics organization survives: n-n
7) Sufficient social stability n-n
8) Cryonics is continuously legal n-n
9) Nanotechnology is physically possible 1-1
10) Nanotechnology is perfected n-n
11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic n-n
12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough” n-n
13) Cryonic revival is permitted n-n
The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.39-0.86
Technologically, will it work? 0.34-0.89
Overall, will it work? 0.13-0.77
That is, a 13-77% probability that cyronics works overall.
Yeah I think my main disagreements are 4 and 5.
Given stories I’ve heard about cryonics orgs, I’d put 10-50% on 5. Given my impression of neuroscience, I’d put 4 at 25-75%.
Given that I’m more pessimistic in general, I’d put an addition 2x penalty on my skepticism of their other guesses.
That puts me around 0.01%-20% spread, or one in ten thousand lower bound, which is better than I expected. If I was convinced that a cryo org was actually a responsible business that would be enough for me to try to make it happen.
Yes—it’s hard to perform the calculations and end up with a high probability that cryonics works.
I think cryonics overall is much less feasible than many Less Wrongers tend to assume. Overall, I think anti-aging has a much higher chance of working to keep us alive much longer than cryonics does.