A precise answer would depend on the probability of success,
Alright—if that’s a datum you need to have before you give an answer, then what would your answer be if the best estimate possible for that probability was 50%? Or 5%? Or 0.05%?
and on the payoff in case of success
If that’s a datum you need, then in what way would you need that payoff described, measured, and/or estimated before you could give an answer, and for a few plausible payoffs, what would your answer be?
among the OB/LW folks
… Is that an indirect way of saying that you don’t consider yourself to be one of the ‘OB/LW folk’ yourself?
Assuming that in case of success your lifespan is increased by 50 years, and your quality of life is essentially unchanged, then:
For p = 50%, I would consider cryonics a standard life-saving medical procedure, thus I would spend on it as much as it takes as long as I can afford it without impairing my immediate survival.
For p = 5% I would consider cryonics an experimental medical procedure. I would spend on it up to about 1⁄10 − 2⁄10 of my discretionary income.
… Is that an indirect way of saying that you don’t consider yourself to be one of the ‘OB/LW folk’ yourself?
I’m here just for the discussions, I don’t feel any sense of belonging to a community that some people here seem to have.
For p = 0.05% I would doubt that the estimate is actually correct to the fourth significant figure. If I can be assured that it is, then I’d say I’ll spend about 1/1000 (edited) of my discretionary income. If I can’t be assured that the estimate is correct, I’ll spend nothing.
Leading zeros are not considered significant figures when they are placeholders used to express the magnitude of a measure, in cases where the magnitude itself is considered essentially certain.
For instance, if you say that the diameter of a €1 coin is 0.0232 metres, it’s clear that the leading zeros are placeholders, since it was already obvious that the diameter of a €1 coin is less than 0.1 metres. In information-theoretic terms, the leading zeros don’t convey any bit of information.
On the other hand, when you are dealing with estimates where there is uncertainty even on the magnitude, then the leading zeros are significant: If you say that the probability of an event is 0.0005, and it wasn’t already obvious that it was less than 0.001, then the leading zeros do convey information.
Any probability greater than zero can be expressed as a fraction of one: p = 0.0005 = 1/2000, thus transforming leading zeros into trailing zeros, which may be significant figures depending on the case.
Note that, on the other hand, the inverse of physical quantity (other than time/frequency) is not generally an intrinsically meaningful number.
If it’s not too personal a question to ask, what’s the order-of-magnitude of your discretionary income? (Or, if you prefer; does $300/year fall within the range of any of your described spending amounts?)
I would doubt that the estimate is actually correct to the second significant figure
I try to think of probabilities in terms of logarithms these days. 0.05% is roughly −26 decibans of confidence, which might help you look at it in a way that avoids the significant-figure difficulty.
If it’s not too personal a question to ask, what’s the order-of-magnitude of your discretionary income? (Or, if you prefer; does $300/year fall within the range of any of your described spending amounts?)
It falls within the 1⁄10 range, not within the 1/1000 range.
I try to think of probabilities in terms of logarithms these days. 0.05% is roughly −26 decibans of confidence, which might help you look at it in a way that avoids the significant-figure difficulty.
But what is the uncertainty on the probability itself?
I can say that the probability of winning a certain lottery is 1⁄700,000,000. This is a very low probability but its very accurate.
I can also say that probability that space aliens visit me and give me a large sum of money is 1⁄700,000,000, but that’s just a number I made up.
But what is the uncertainty on the probability itself?
Let’s see; in this post is a link to this spreadsheet, which gives various people’s estimates, and, unless you have any better data to use, can serve as an overall initial ‘wisdom of the crowds’ estimate along the lines of a futures prediction market. The predicted odds of success are one in 3, 4, 15, somewhere from 7 to 435, and 1010; for a naive average of 1 in 250, or about 0.4%.
Do you have any reason to believe that you will be able to acquire a more accurate estimate at any time in the near future?
Note that most of these are exactly the kind of made up numbers I was talking about in my previous comment. You can’t start with guesses that show a variance within the first decimal figure and end up with an estimate with a supposed three or four significant figures.
I don’t see much value in these kind of calculations other than the simple realization that cryonics succes is an higly conjunctive event, the more failure modes you consider, the lower the probabilty of succes. Thus, the actual probability is going to be quite low.
Unless someone provides a compelling argument that the probability of success of cryonics is non-negligible, the default position is to reject it. Compare it to other non-evidence-based “medical” procedures such as homeopathy of prayer-based healing.
Compare it to other non-evidence-based “medical” procedures such as homeopathy of prayer-based healing.
Okay—I pay some attention to the skeptical community, such as the podcasts “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe” and “Skeptoid”. The two items you mention not only have no significant evidence for their efficacy, they have significant quantities of evidence against it, plus additional, even stronger, evidence against their claimed methods of operation. Thus, there is plenty of evidence to tot up, dragging the amount of confidence that anyone should have in those procedures to be in the minus dozens of decibans—say, −70 or below.
The most pessimistic estimate given on that page for successful cryonic revival is around 1/1000, or −30 decibans.
That’s a minimum difference in confidence of 40 decibans—the equivalent of changing your mind from a 50⁄50 chance to 99.99% certainty. Or from 99.99% certainty of falsehood to a 50⁄50 chance. Or, put another way, at least two completely independent studies each with a p-value of 0.01 or better.
My conclusion: there’s very little comparison between cryonics and pseudoscience.
Alright—if that’s a datum you need to have before you give an answer, then what would your answer be if the best estimate possible for that probability was 50%? Or 5%? Or 0.05%?
If that’s a datum you need, then in what way would you need that payoff described, measured, and/or estimated before you could give an answer, and for a few plausible payoffs, what would your answer be?
… Is that an indirect way of saying that you don’t consider yourself to be one of the ‘OB/LW folk’ yourself?
Assuming that in case of success your lifespan is increased by 50 years, and your quality of life is essentially unchanged, then:
For p = 50%, I would consider cryonics a standard life-saving medical procedure, thus I would spend on it as much as it takes as long as I can afford it without impairing my immediate survival.
For p = 5% I would consider cryonics an experimental medical procedure. I would spend on it up to about 1⁄10 − 2⁄10 of my discretionary income.
I’m here just for the discussions, I don’t feel any sense of belonging to a community that some people here seem to have.
For p = 0.05% I would doubt that the estimate is actually correct to the fourth significant figure. If I can be assured that it is, then I’d say I’ll spend about 1/1000 (edited) of my discretionary income. If I can’t be assured that the estimate is correct, I’ll spend nothing.
0.05% (i.e. 0.0005) is a number expressed to four decimal places, but only one significant figure.
Leading zeros are not considered significant figures when they are placeholders used to express the magnitude of a measure, in cases where the magnitude itself is considered essentially certain.
For instance, if you say that the diameter of a €1 coin is 0.0232 metres, it’s clear that the leading zeros are placeholders, since it was already obvious that the diameter of a €1 coin is less than 0.1 metres. In information-theoretic terms, the leading zeros don’t convey any bit of information.
On the other hand, when you are dealing with estimates where there is uncertainty even on the magnitude, then the leading zeros are significant: If you say that the probability of an event is 0.0005, and it wasn’t already obvious that it was less than 0.001, then the leading zeros do convey information.
They convey information, but they are not significant figures, which is a term with a specific meaning.
Well, if you have to nitpick...
Any probability greater than zero can be expressed as a fraction of one: p = 0.0005 = 1/2000, thus transforming leading zeros into trailing zeros, which may be significant figures depending on the case.
Note that, on the other hand, the inverse of physical quantity (other than time/frequency) is not generally an intrinsically meaningful number.
If it’s not too personal a question to ask, what’s the order-of-magnitude of your discretionary income? (Or, if you prefer; does $300/year fall within the range of any of your described spending amounts?)
I try to think of probabilities in terms of logarithms these days. 0.05% is roughly −26 decibans of confidence, which might help you look at it in a way that avoids the significant-figure difficulty.
It falls within the 1⁄10 range, not within the 1/1000 range.
But what is the uncertainty on the probability itself?
I can say that the probability of winning a certain lottery is 1⁄700,000,000. This is a very low probability but its very accurate. I can also say that probability that space aliens visit me and give me a large sum of money is 1⁄700,000,000, but that’s just a number I made up.
Let’s see; in this post is a link to this spreadsheet, which gives various people’s estimates, and, unless you have any better data to use, can serve as an overall initial ‘wisdom of the crowds’ estimate along the lines of a futures prediction market. The predicted odds of success are one in 3, 4, 15, somewhere from 7 to 435, and 1010; for a naive average of 1 in 250, or about 0.4%.
Do you have any reason to believe that you will be able to acquire a more accurate estimate at any time in the near future?
Note that most of these are exactly the kind of made up numbers I was talking about in my previous comment. You can’t start with guesses that show a variance within the first decimal figure and end up with an estimate with a supposed three or four significant figures.
I don’t see much value in these kind of calculations other than the simple realization that cryonics succes is an higly conjunctive event, the more failure modes you consider, the lower the probabilty of succes. Thus, the actual probability is going to be quite low.
Unless someone provides a compelling argument that the probability of success of cryonics is non-negligible, the default position is to reject it. Compare it to other non-evidence-based “medical” procedures such as homeopathy of prayer-based healing.
Okay—I pay some attention to the skeptical community, such as the podcasts “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe” and “Skeptoid”. The two items you mention not only have no significant evidence for their efficacy, they have significant quantities of evidence against it, plus additional, even stronger, evidence against their claimed methods of operation. Thus, there is plenty of evidence to tot up, dragging the amount of confidence that anyone should have in those procedures to be in the minus dozens of decibans—say, −70 or below.
The most pessimistic estimate given on that page for successful cryonic revival is around 1/1000, or −30 decibans.
That’s a minimum difference in confidence of 40 decibans—the equivalent of changing your mind from a 50⁄50 chance to 99.99% certainty. Or from 99.99% certainty of falsehood to a 50⁄50 chance. Or, put another way, at least two completely independent studies each with a p-value of 0.01 or better.
My conclusion: there’s very little comparison between cryonics and pseudoscience.