Bender

The first link is of particular interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Preservation_injury It mentions dehydration and damage of cells and connections between cells, which are pretty important in a brain. Chemical fixation appears to alleviate those issues, but it remains unclear whether these chemicals themselves don't make reviving the cells impossible. In short: there is quite a lot of skepticism about existing methods, and I put myself in the camp of the skeptics. She was frozen with a technique that was never proven, and while it it possible that humanity one day invents a proper way of cryopreservation of humans, I expect that the freezing step will be an important part of that future technology.

I think I mixed up. Apologies.

Some questions: Is it ok to swat a mosquito or to poison rats or vermin? Is it ok to own a pet cat? Compared to how they kill their prey, farm animals have it pretty fine in the worst of slaughter houses. Is it ok to accidentally step on a bug, seriously damaging them but not killing them, leaving them for a long and agonizing death struggle? Citation needed.

That depends on how she was frozen and how she is stored and revived. If she froze to slowly, the ice crystals will have destroyed her neurons and it will be either impossible to revive her or she would suffer a degree of brain damage (as well as damage to all her other organs). Even if she is frozen quickly enough, her cells would slowly dehydrate. In short: I don't personally think that anyone who is currently frozen will ever be revived, so the question about their memory is not really relevant.

I just saw an episode of "Human Universe" which raised some interesting points relevant to this discussion. - Abiogenesis may have happened very quickly and may happen on billions of planets in our galaxy, but the transition from bacteria to complex life (Eukaryotes; symbiosis between cells and mitochondria) happened only once and it took several billion years to happen. So while the universe might be thriving with bacterial life (or similar), complex, multicellular could be extremely rare. - Von Neumann machines: in a couple of centuries, humanity could probably build autonomous interstellar probes that can travel to other stars, mine asteroids there and replicate themselves. Suppose they travel at 0.1% of the speed of light, and most stars are withing 50 000 light years from Earth, it would take 50 million years of travel. There are about 100 billion stars, let's put them in a flat square lattice, 100 stars high and 30 000 stars across, so the Von Neumann machines would (at worst) need to replicate 15 000 times to span the entire galaxy. If a single replication takes 100 years, that is another 1.5 million years, so negligible on the total time. Given that, if each Von Neumann machine replicates itself a number of time, this expansion will go exponential, a similar civilisation as ours could visit the entire galaxy in only 50 million years. Colonisation in generation ships probably takes longer, but perhaps only 500 million years. None of this requires super fancy technology such as FTL travel. The fact that there are billions of earth-like planets where life could have evolved, and many of them are older than our solar system, they should already have been here if intelligent life was likely. (or all of such civilisations have a prime directive)

So you acknowledge that absolute nothingness has never been observed. Why then do you assume that it ever existed?

It depends on the minerals inside the concrete, asphalt, sand and stone. Some, such as magnetite, is even ferromagnetic.

It is possible to build an ICE that runs on hydrogen, but it will be bound by the Carnot limit and the efficiency will depend on the speed. Because of the higher temperatures, this also creates NOx, so the exhaust isn't pollutant free. 30% efficiency in an ICE only happens at optimal speed. In heavy traffic, it can go as low as 5%.

The specific situation of a changing radius in a closed system indeed doesn't come up very often. One example is the de-spin device on satellites, which work great. However, since you are making claims that go against what has been shown to work in every quantitative experiment ever, could you at least show how you would use your hypothesis to make calculations on a concrete example. We aren't talking about "examples of planetary motion discrepancies". According to you, all planetary motions should be completely and utterly wrong. Can you please demonstrate how you would calculate the orbit of a planet or moon of your choice?

A nice analogy is the difference between a simple processor like Arduino and a PC. To operate, the PC needs a higher level system to coordinate different processes and make high level decisions. An insect's programming is simple enough that it needs little more that an Arduino running a main program and some subtasks. Large mammals need more complex behaviour to e.g. not blindly run towards the source when they smell food (insects usually don't take potential risks into account). To coordinate their actions, they need an additional programming level.

Strictly speaking, we indeed cannot prove it doesn't exist, nor will we ever be able to prove that. However, if it does, at what point in our evolution did our ancestors start getting an afterlife? Which other creatures or plants have an afterlife? Any hypothesis that includes an afterlife should have a clear answer to these inherently fuzzy questions.

As far as I understand it, the rationalisation usually works the other way, away from knowledge. I thought it was interesting, and admirable, that you consciously try to steer it towards what you know. But there would be nothing to remember. No brain activity means no dreams and no memories. She might dream during the process of freezing or defrosting, but by definition she wouldn't be dead at those times. It is really no different from other supposed near-dead experiences.

Others have already done that quite adequately and patiently. I suggest we start over and focus on to these two questions: 1) Are engineers making enormous errors when designing machines based on their understanding of angular momentum? 2) Do astronomers completely fail to predict the movement of planetary objects?

Interestingly, you seem to be aware of it and don't attempt to rationalise it away.

True, all very different cases. Are children in your country obliged by law to get certain vaccines such as polio? In Belgium I haven't personally met any anti-vaxxers and it is mostly considered a fringe problem among certain religious groups. According to an article (in Dutch), most people that aren't vaccinated against measles simply forgot.

Why does it matter if it is "billions of billions of tons"? What is your reference for magnitude?

Looks like you are experiencing textbook cognitive dissonance.

To be fair, there are plenty of flying spaghetti monster facebook pages and the largest I could find has 187K followers. While there might be a handful who completely missed the point and actually believe in the flying spaghetti monster, those are definitely exceptions. In case of the flat earthers, it is probably more worrying, but I doubt a majority of those 77 thousand actually believe it. Most probably just joined for giggles. The vaccination hysteria is a more compelling lie, because the results are less visible. That makes it is less of a stretch to believe it, especially for people who are already under the delusion that the government/scientists are evil and like spreading death and misery. Compared to flat earth, it is also in no way funny to join a movement like that, so anyone liking or sharing such information probably means it.

I already did. Our non-religious schools have a morality/life lessons subject, which teaches contentment just as much as the religion subjects in religious schools. Apart from that, nearly every parent I know tries to teach their children contentment, and I hardly know any religious people.

I don't think there is a discharge at low pressures. The voltage needs to be high to give the electrons enough energy to leave the metal, after that, they become free electrons and fly through the (for practical purposes) near vacuum.

But memories are biological connections in your brain.

It was a suggestion for what could be a simple solution at car manufactury level.

Not if you made an exact copy, including all memories (although Heisenberg might make that theoretically impossible).

So since our discussion in March, it appears very little has changed. Let's summarise, so we can pick up where we left off: 1) You base all this on very poorly executed "experiments", most of which aren't closed systems at all and without any quantitative data. 2) Pulling in a spinning mass with a string makes the mass move on a spiral. This means the force is not perpendicular to the motion and linear momentum is not conserved. 3) All equations of angular momentum and the conservation thereof can be derived from Newton's laws of motion. Claiming that angular momentum is not conserved implies that you also claim Newton's laws of motion are incorrect. 4) You never considered these points (perhaps best to start with these):

The cells in our body die all the time. In a couple of years, nearly all cells in your body will be death, but new cells come to life to replace them. Yet in this cycle of cellular death and birth, our identity remains. So in a way, we are living our own afterlife, all the time.