R. Posner in his book "Catastrophe" has tried to create such model for asteroid impact risks and also for collider risks.

The book was written by a judge and he study a lot legal and economic aspect of preventing human extinction.

For example he shows that typically human life costs 3 mln USD, and it could help us to compare risks and benefits of certain technologies.

While it was interesting reading, I don't think it has much practical value. https://www.amazon.com/Catastrophe-Risk-Response-Richard-Posner/dp/0195306473

It would be interesting to make Null experiment, which will consist only of two control groups, so we will know what is the medium difference between two equal groups. It would also interesting to add two control groups in each experiment, as we will see how strong is the effect.

For example if we have difference between main and control in 10 per cent, it could looks like strong result. But if we have second control group, and it has 7 per cent difference from first control group, our result is not so strong after all.

I think that it is clear that can't do it just splitting existing control group in two parts, as such action could be done in many different ways and researcher could choose most favorable, and also because there could be some interactions inside control group, and also because smaler statistic power.

Did Zuckerberg make the right choice by a Berkeley, Stanford, and University of California collaboration decide how to spend their money? I guess BioHub will be similar than the NIH is how it allocates funding.

Zuckerberg could also have funded Aubrey de Grey. They could have funded research on how to make medical research better the way the Laura and John Arnold Foundation does.

TechCrunch:

The technologies Zuckerberg listed were “AI software to help with imaging the brain…to make progress on neurological diseases, machine learning to analyze large databases of cancer genomes,

Last year we made progress in understanding that the brain contains lympahtic tissue because a surgeon fund it. All the standard imaging didn't bring us forward. Using machine learning to analyze large databases of cancer genomes is also a well funded research area.

Funding AI technology to create <1000$ bodyscans based on technology like Walabot would likely bring us much further in understanding our bodies than the kind of research that's already well funded like brain imagining and genome analysis.

There's a guy named Donald D. Hoffman whom I saw on YouTube; unlike you, he is sort of "consciousness monist" (if I understand him correctly), that is, he claims that the most basic part of reality is consciousness and, in fact, reality is a network of relations between these basic particles.

I guess that if you can find some sort of an identity between this basic particle and a mathematical object we get your idea (If I understand your ideas correctly).

I also sort of remember him claiming that he could deduce the rules of quantum mechanics, but I'm not 100% sure.

You might want to check his ideas out.

Cheers

I guess you ask "why" when something is unobvious or unexpected.

The first one is relative, where obvious for a smart person might not be obvious to a less-smart one. So, like you said, it is not obvious why the null hypothesis does not obtain, and anyone who says that existence is obvious is fooling himself.

The second is less relative, for example, if a monkey randomly types Hamlet then it is unexpected, but if he just typed pure gibberish, it is not. Thus, a universe which is a totally chaotic will be more expected than a universe like ours (so not only need we ask why something exists, but why it is so ordered). However, I don't know if we can say that the null-hypothesis is more expected.

I guess, in a clumsy manner, I meant to say that the real question is what would a satisfying explanation be. Some people are satisfied with God, others with MUH, others with Suskind's landscape and others will never be.

Now, about "something" equal to existence. That's tricky, is a square circle something? Is a possible world something? If they are, do they "exist"?

I agree with you that the only type of existence that we are 100% sure about is our own (i.e. our consciousness). Now, if you are not a solipsist, then, as you said, you are willing to grant "existence" to things that you can interact with, but then would you deny it from causally independent realms of existence? Does a universe without observers, like the sound of the proverbial tree in the forest, really exist? I think Wheeler thought so, and I am sympathetic to that position, but who knows.

Furthermore, do the objects in our physical theories exist--like quarks, strings, other universes in Linde's chaotic realm--they might explain a lot, but their existence is always indirectly inferred or is a conclusion of some useful theory.

So to (sort of) answer your question, I don't think I can give an intensional definition of existence, but its extensional one will include consciousness; it might include other things but I think we'll need to know the intensional one first...

As for all logically consistent structures (or something like that) existing. Maybe, who knows. It's a bit like Lewis's and Tegmark's ideas, no? Also, I'm not an expert, but I think that theorems by Tarski(?) show that there isn't any universal notion of "Truth."

And what is "A"? A proposition? A sentence in first order logic? A sentence in set theory? A second order sentence?

What if A says about itself "I do not exist"? If it's true then it doesn't exist, if it is not then it does.

My head is starting to ache, so I'll better stop.

Cheers.

Oh, no i haven't seen this one! I'll check it out.

What software do you use to make these?

These are very interesting, particularly the Values Apocalypse. I'd be curious to draw up a longer and more detailed spectrum. I limited this one to seven to keep it low-resolution and memorable.

We could add here "Qualia apocalypses" - human are alive but become p-zombies may be after wrong uploading

Intelligence apocalypses - human go extinct, but no other form of intelligence appear. Or human survive but their creative intelligence permanently damaged and IQ never rise above 80. May be because global contamination by arsenic.

Gene allele apocalypses - many interesting alleles in human genom disappear. The remains look like humans but many interesting traits are lost.

Primate apocalypses - all high apes extinct including humans, new intelligence on Earth could appear only after 10 million years from now or more.

Mammal apocalypses.

Vertebral apocalypses

Values apocalypses - human values eroded and replaced by another values, like Nazi. Probably it has happened several times in history.

Evolution apocalypses - evolution just ends, human exists almost forever, but nothing new happens, no superAI, no star travel. Just the end of complexity growth. AI may appear but will be as boring as Windows 7.

Individuality apocalypses - humans become all very similar to each other. It already happened with globalisation.

Children apocalypses - human just stop to reproduce above replacement rate.

Art apocalypses - human lost interest to arts or ability to create really interesting art. Some think that it has already happened.

Wire-geading-euporium-superdrug apocalypses. New ways of the brain stimulation completely distract humans from real life. ̶T̶h̶e̶y ̶s̶p̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶F̶B̶

Wrong upgrade apocalypses - human basic drives are edited on birth so they are not aggressive, but they also lose interest to space exploration (S.Lem novel about it).

Farmers are nursing small pigs like their children, but later kill them and eat them. It may be unpredictable for pigs.

A spy who works like an ordinary person, but sometimes stole information.

As a cryonicist, I'm drafting out a text describing my revival preferences and requests, to be stored along with my other paperwork. (Oddly enough, this isn't a standard practice.) The current draft is here. I'm currently seeking suggestions for improvement, and a lot of the people around here seem to have good heads on their shoulders, so I thought I'd ask for comments here. Any thoughts?