= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Dec. 22 - Dec. 28, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (218)
Instead of "unknown" pick a number. What the percentage that you believe it would work? Then go and calculate expected payoffs based on the price.
When I think about it I end up with a bad drake equation for both the 'win' and the 'outcome payoff'. In the drake equation you get to start off with the number of planets in the universe.
When you win is also interesting. Being revived 1 year after death should be worth more then 1m years after death.
Previous discussion of Drake-style equations for cryonics: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fz9
Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Why? If you assume progress, wouldn't you want to be revived into a more advanced society rather than the same old mess?
If you're revived 1 year after death the people you care about are probably still around, you probably have useful job skills, you may be able to recover some of your old property, etc.
I understand that. But what you are losing is the chance of being reborn, ahem, in a better place.
It's an interesting choice, driven, I assume, by risk aversion and desire for novelty. Probably different people will choose differently.
Not necessarily: Once it's proven that Cryonics works and people can be revived presumably if you can afford it you can just request to be refrozen and then woken up at a later date.
This may lead to its own problems
How much use is a better place to you if you can't understand it? I'd rather live through the intervening years so I can grow into the better future.