What makes you believe that? Cryonics is relatively well known among scientifically educated audiences. it’s even the main plot device of a tv show aimed at general audiences (Futurama).
This physicist has never heard anyone talk about cryonics in meatspace, and assumed that the Futurama thing was fictional until reading Less Wrong. (Also, Fry was alive when he got frozen.)
Moreover, physicists are usually atheists, therefore in principle they should have no religous objection to cryonics.
For some not-very-large value of “usually”. Where I am, physicists aren’t that less likely to be religious than random people the same age and geographic provenance (but it’s probably different elsewhere).
This physicist has never heard anyone talk about cryonics in meatspace, and assumed that the Futurama thing was fictional until reading Less Wrong. (Also, Fry was alive when he got frozen.)
How old were you when you started reading Less Wrong?
For some not-very-large value of “usually”. Where I am, physicists aren’t that less likely to be religious than random people the same age and geographic provenance (but it’s probably different elsewhere).
That would be surprising. Do you have any reference?
How old were you when you started reading Less Wrong?
24. Why?
That would be surprising. Do you have any reference?
No statistics about that, I’m afraid. You’d have to accept my anecdata. I have met at least a dozen Catholic physicists, many of whom engaged in various kinds of Catholic associations; that’s somewhere around half the physicists I know well enough to know their religious stance. (Also, [REDACTED].)
That’s less surprising if you know that the person most people where I’m from think of first when they hear “physicist” is this guy.
This physicist has never heard anyone talk about cryonics in meatspace, and assumed that the Futurama thing was fictional until reading Less Wrong. (Also, Fry was alive when he got frozen.)
For some not-very-large value of “usually”. Where I am, physicists aren’t that less likely to be religious than random people the same age and geographic provenance (but it’s probably different elsewhere).
How old were you when you started reading Less Wrong?
That would be surprising. Do you have any reference?
24. Why?
No statistics about that, I’m afraid. You’d have to accept my anecdata. I have met at least a dozen Catholic physicists, many of whom engaged in various kinds of Catholic associations; that’s somewhere around half the physicists I know well enough to know their religious stance. (Also, [REDACTED].)
That’s less surprising if you know that the person most people where I’m from think of first when they hear “physicist” is this guy.
Because the younger you started reading Less Wrong the higher the probability that you were first exposed to its common topics by it.