homunq comments on More Cryonics Probability Estimates - Less Wrong

20 Post author: jkaufman 17 December 2012 08:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (89)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: homunq 19 December 2012 03:16:22AM *  3 points [-]

There are also some less-traditional paths-to-lose:

  • Your cryopreservation subscription fees prevent you from buying something else that ends up saving your life (or someone else's)

  • You would never die anyway, so your cryopreservation fees only cost pre-singularity utilons from you (or others you would have given the money to).

  • Simulation is possible, but it is for some reason much "thinner" than reality; that is, a given simulation, even as it runs on a computer existing in a quantum MWI, follows only a very limited number of quantum branches, so has a tiny impact on the measure of the set of future happy versions of you (smaller even than the plain old non-technological-quantum-immortality versions who simply didn't happen to die).

  • You are resurrected by a future UFAI in a hell-world. For instance, in order to get one working version of you, the UFAI must create many almost-versions which are painfully insane; and its ethics say that's OK. And it does this to all corpsicles it finds but not to any other dead people.

I have strong opinions of the likeliness of these (I'd put one at p>99% and another at p<1%) but in any case they're worth mentioning.

Comment author: loup-vaillant 19 December 2012 05:37:32PM *  0 points [-]

Hmm, regarding quantum immortality, I did think about it. Taken to its extreme, I could perform quantum suicide while tying the result of the quantum draw to the lottery. Then it occurred to me that the vast majority of worlds, in which I did not win the lottery, would contain one more sad mother. Such a situation scores far lower in my utility function than the status quo does.

I feel I should treat quantum suicide by cryostination the same way. The only problem is that the status quo bias works against me this time.

Comment author: homunq 19 December 2012 06:53:32PM 0 points [-]

Sorry: I edited the comment you were responding to to clarify my intended meaning, and now perhaps the (unintended?) idea you were responding to is no longer there.