= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HungryHobo comments on [LINK] Why Cryonics Makes Sense - Wait But Why - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
I suppose the article does a good job answering some of the common objections, but I still think the most important thing that's stopping people from signing up is the fact that they just don't care: after all, life sucks, but at least then you die.
That said, there is one argument that I find kind of powerful that articles like this don't usually touch on (for somewhat obvious reasons): the point made in, for example, the preface to the finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover, that if we actually live in an infinite multiverse/many-worlds/nested simulverse/etc, we may be bound to find ourselves resurrected by someone eventually anyways, and cryonics could be a way to try to make sure that someone is friendly.
I'm not really sure what to make of that argument though. I wonder if there's anybody who's signed up because of reasons like that, despite not having any interest in cryonics in general?
I don't believe in nested simulverse etc but I feel I should point out that even if some of those things were true waking up one way does not preclude waking up one or more of the other ways in addition to that.
You mean none of what I mentioned? Why not?
You're right. I should have said "make it more likely", not "make sure".
Same reason I don't believe in god. As yet we have ~zero evidence for being in a simulation.
Your odds of waking up in the hands of someone extremely unfriendly is unchanged. You're just making it more likely that one fork of yourself might wake up in friendly hands.
We have evidence (albeit no "smoking-gun evidence") for eternal inflation, we have evidence for a flat and thus infinite universe, string theory is right now our best guess at what the theory of everything is like; these all predict a multiverse where everything possible happens and where somebody should thus be expected to simulate you.
Well, I think that qualifies. Our language is a bit inadequate for discussing situations with multiple future selves.
I find that about as convincing as "if you see a watch there must be a watchmaker" style arguments.
There are a number of ways theorized to test if we're in various kinds of simulation and so far they've all turned up negative.
String theory is famously bad at being usable to predict even mundane things even if it is elegant and "flat" is not the same as "infinite".
I don't see the similarity here.
Oh?
It basically makes no new testable predictions right now. Doesn't mean that it won't do so in the future. (I have no opinion about string theory myself, but a lot of physicists do see it as promising. Some don't. As far as I know, we currently know of no good alternative that's less weird.)