It’s not a rebuttal, exactly, but mostly this seems like haggling over the price.
If you believe that signing up for cryonics makes sense at 50, then presumably you believe that your probability (Pd50) of dying that year in a cryopreservable way (e.g., in a hospital, not in an accident, whatever), your probability (Pv) of being revived post-mortem if you die in a cryopreservable way, and your estimate of the value (V) of being revived post-mortem are such that (V Pv Pd50) is greater than the differential cost of signing up at 50 vs 51.
It seems clear that Pd50 is higher than Pd20. All this business about accidents aside, you’re simply less likely to die at 20 than you are at 50. Call that factor X. You can look up actuarial tables to get a sense of it; it’s probably smaller than 1000.
You can also look up what you pay for your first year of coverage if you sign up at 20, vs 50. Call that difference Y.
So, the question is, is your estimate of (Pv V X) higher than Y?
If so, then it seems that the value of signing up for a year of coverage at 20 is worth the cost. If not, then it isn’t.
I find the idea of being confident of this equation at 50 but not at 20 to be outright bizarre… it seems to me that the vast uncertainty inherent in estimating V and Pv is such that if I’m confident cryonics is a good bet at 50, a few orders of magnitude one way or the other ought not significantly alter my confidence.
Fair enough. I just have trouble believing that it’s a factor that’s actually large enough to affect the EV calculations people are actually doing, to the extent that people do EV calculations before signing up for cryonics at all.
It’s not a rebuttal, exactly, but mostly this seems like haggling over the price.
If you believe that signing up for cryonics makes sense at 50, then presumably you believe that your probability (Pd50) of dying that year in a cryopreservable way (e.g., in a hospital, not in an accident, whatever), your probability (Pv) of being revived post-mortem if you die in a cryopreservable way, and your estimate of the value (V) of being revived post-mortem are such that (V Pv Pd50) is greater than the differential cost of signing up at 50 vs 51.
It seems clear that Pd50 is higher than Pd20. All this business about accidents aside, you’re simply less likely to die at 20 than you are at 50. Call that factor X. You can look up actuarial tables to get a sense of it; it’s probably smaller than 1000.
You can also look up what you pay for your first year of coverage if you sign up at 20, vs 50. Call that difference Y.
So, the question is, is your estimate of (Pv V X) higher than Y?
If so, then it seems that the value of signing up for a year of coverage at 20 is worth the cost.
If not, then it isn’t.
I find the idea of being confident of this equation at 50 but not at 20 to be outright bizarre… it seems to me that the vast uncertainty inherent in estimating V and Pv is such that if I’m confident cryonics is a good bet at 50, a few orders of magnitude one way or the other ought not significantly alter my confidence.
For total deaths, sure; for cryopreservable deaths, I have my doubts.
Fair enough.
I just have trouble believing that it’s a factor that’s actually large enough to affect the EV calculations people are actually doing, to the extent that people do EV calculations before signing up for cryonics at all.