My point is actually that the poster I was responding to does not believe it is impossible to restore a cryogenic patient. If that person did believe it is imp

My point is actually that the poster I was responding to does not believe it is impossible to restore a cryogenic patient. If that person did believe it is impossible then they would be ambivalent about guessing which person was restored to life (the cryogenic patient or the mummified Emperor from antiquity). You're correct that thought experiment I posed cannot offer analytic insight - it doesn't tell us anything about the mechanism for restoring life to frozen people or allow us to update our beliefs as to the likelihood of this being possible. The thought experiment does offer an introspective insight into beliefs that you already hold though - specifically that you believe there is a non-zero possibility of cryogenic enabled resurrection occurring. Let's work through the thought experiment with my answer (M) and the answer of an imaginary interlocutor (I). Experiment: In 100 years someone long dead is restored to life. Is this person a mummy or a cryogenics patient? I: Could be either with equal probability. I believe that both are impossible and therefore I'm ambivalent about the choice. M: I'd guess the cryogenic patient. While I think the odds of both are low, the odds of the cryogenic patient are better in my estimation. Because I believe that the odds of the cryogenics patient are greater than the odds of the mummy, I logically cannot believe that both are zero. In other words, if you aren't ambivalent about the choice, you cannot logically hold the belief that both are impossible. If you are ambivalent, then you are free to think that both are impossible. Because I suspect you have an intuitive reluctance to claim ambivalence, I doubt you really think that the odds of cryogenic resurrection are zero.