In principle, rational choice under uncertainty is straightforward — maximize expected utility. Doing this requires you to know both the probability and utility of all of the outcomes you are considering.
Every step we take is a low probability, live or die gamble. Data suggests such is also true taking a shower, with the odds against us significantly greater.
None the less most of us find the risk reward ratio quite acceptable.
Congratulations on making arrangements to be cryopreserved! I would consider Tomorrow Biostasis instead of Alcor based on how each organization is doing but getting signed up with any reasonable biostasis organization is the big step.
I wrote a piece not long ago about estimating the probability that cryonics will work for you:
I think there's a fundamental flaw in Pascal's argument.
Pascal says that I'm wagering the finite span of a human lifetime against an eternity of bliss or agony, and that obviously the price of the wager is trivial. And that seems to make sense. But that's because Pascal is assuming that there is an eternity against which the human lifespan can be measured.
And if there is no eternity, then what I am wagering is not trivial: It's all the life that I will ever have. If I lose the bet then I have lost everything. And that doesn't look so prudent; in fact it looks totally imprudent.
No. I have given up my life: I have not lived by what I actually value, but by the dictates of a church whose values I don't share, and whose rules I don't agree with. I have spoiled the only life I have, out of an imaginary fear.
Well, it doesn't actually affect me, because I actually haven't taken Pascal's wager; I'm describing what would happen if I did—a false to fact hypothetical. Normally I would use the conditional, but you phrased the hypothetical in the indicative ("If you lose") rather than the subjunctive ("If you lost"), so I maintained that phrasing.
My response, when pushed by True believers, is that if God designed me, then He can live with the consequences, pro or con. If He wants fawning crowds, He knows how to arrange it. If He wants people to argue with, then He knows how to do that too. It would be presumptuous of me to second guess Him.
Every step we take is a low probability, live or die gamble. Data suggests such is also true taking a shower, with the odds against us significantly greater.
None the less most of us find the risk reward ratio quite acceptable.
Great article, especially appreciated since I'm an Alcor member since 1988.
FWIW, the AI XRisk debate needs this input: https://zerothprinciples.substack.com/p/ai-alignment-is-trivial
Congratulations on making arrangements to be cryopreserved! I would consider Tomorrow Biostasis instead of Alcor based on how each organization is doing but getting signed up with any reasonable biostasis organization is the big step.
I wrote a piece not long ago about estimating the probability that cryonics will work for you:
https://biostasis.substack.com/p/what-is-the-probability-of-cryonics
I think there's a fundamental flaw in Pascal's argument.
Pascal says that I'm wagering the finite span of a human lifetime against an eternity of bliss or agony, and that obviously the price of the wager is trivial. And that seems to make sense. But that's because Pascal is assuming that there is an eternity against which the human lifespan can be measured.
And if there is no eternity, then what I am wagering is not trivial: It's all the life that I will ever have. If I lose the bet then I have lost everything. And that doesn't look so prudent; in fact it looks totally imprudent.
If you lose, you still have lived your life. You have that either way. No?
No. I have given up my life: I have not lived by what I actually value, but by the dictates of a church whose values I don't share, and whose rules I don't agree with. I have spoiled the only life I have, out of an imaginary fear.
I’m sorry to hear that. That does affect Pascal’s Wager.
Well, it doesn't actually affect me, because I actually haven't taken Pascal's wager; I'm describing what would happen if I did—a false to fact hypothetical. Normally I would use the conditional, but you phrased the hypothetical in the indicative ("If you lose") rather than the subjunctive ("If you lost"), so I maintained that phrasing.
If He is, will He hold a grudge that I did not believe, and thus deny me infinite gain?
My response, when pushed by True believers, is that if God designed me, then He can live with the consequences, pro or con. If He wants fawning crowds, He knows how to arrange it. If He wants people to argue with, then He knows how to do that too. It would be presumptuous of me to second guess Him.