[FoRK] Extreme Life Extension: Investing in Cryonics for the Long, Long Term
jbone at place.org
Mon Jun 21 12:48:16 PDT 2010
On Jun 18, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Reese <howell.r at inkworkswell.com> wrote:
>> Not that I think that freezing ones-self is bunk, but there does
>> need to be a measure of certainty that seems to be lacking in the
>> case of M. Williams.
> There's a qualitatively infinite difference between epsilon and zero probability in this area. Hardly matters if it's bunk, as there is approaching certainty that nothing else we have today will do the trick.
Meant to make this point some time ago, but:
As such, cryonics is sort of a reverse Pascal's Gamble for would-be rationalists.
If you can't find it within yourself to actually make Pascal's Gamble per se, then the opposite bet seems a reasonable hedge, however flaky the science and the business behind it. 1 in a million is qualitatively infinitely better than 0.
If anyone has a compelling rational argument against this line of thinking, I'd love to hear it...
More information about the FoRK