Modern Pascal's Wager adaptation: For real.

[soon2bepro]

If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes. Science as of today can extend people's lives, and will continue to be able to extend them as it progresses. It's definitely a possibility that if science manages to progress faster than people deteriorate, people's lives can be extended long enough to reach point X (where death by natural causes can be avoided).

Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain. (not necessarily so, but at least there's a significant chance of this, whereas there probably isn't a significant chance that it will result in infinite loss, as you can just kill yourself anytime you want)

You see where I'm going. There's a slim chance that you have an infinite gain, out of a finite loss, so you should (rationally) put all your efforts towards this objective.

As I see it, this objective needs 2 things: 1) That you stay alive long enough. and 2) That science progresses fast enough.

So you should put all your efforts towards maximizing your health, minimizing your chances of dying and making world science progress as fast as possible.

Then again, we're not wholly rational beings, so I can understand that many of us (myself included), after being presented with this argument and finding it correct, still don't dedicate their whole lives to this end.

Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[AWoodside]

I agree. Transhumanism ftw.

[godBoy]

"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be irrational for me, personally, to devote all my resources to this objective. Same reason why it's irrational for me to vote.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, maybe it's not 100% certain. Still, we don't need it to be.



Oh by the way, I wanted to add:
You don't need to dedicate your whole life to this end to make it worthwhile. Every bit of dedication towards this goal is giving you an infinitely positive expected value. The more the better, that's all.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be irrational for me, personally, to devote all my resources to this objective. Same reason why it's irrational for me to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

By the way, if you're going to say something like "I don't wanna live forever", then it's irrelevant to this issue.

[chezlaw]

The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be irrational for me, personally, to devote all my resources to this objective. Same reason why it's irrational for me to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I am the only human working on this objective, then I am going to die wayyyyyy before I make any significant progress. So it would be pointless for me to do so.

If our entire society is working towards this objective, then it would be irrational for me to do so as well, because I could continue to live my life as I want to while everyone else is working to keep me alive forever. Freerider ftw.

[HiiroYuy]

Good point, but I could maximize my efforts to minimize the amount of chances I have to die, however I could still get struck by a car walking to the store which is fifty feet away.

So as for progressing science, this I can attempt.

But I will continue to smoke blunts and skateboard daily, for no matter how hard you try to minimize chances of death, it can be over-ridden in a second.

[Piers]

Future events need to be discounted.

Recently started a degree in Biology, I think that’s were all the big movement will be in the next centaury.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
But I will continue to smoke blunts and skateboard daily, for no matter how hard you try to minimize chances of death, it can be over-ridden in a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you're saying that no matter how much you minimize your chance, there's still some chance you'll die. That doesn't make any sense. The point is to get a larger chance at eternal life.

If you're arguing that once you reach point X you'll still eventually die from an accident, well, that's another issue, but I don't think it has to be that way. I mean, I think there's a significant chance that if you reach point X you won't die from any cause at all.

[HiiroYuy]

I don't mean a pre-determined X. Let me figure out an equation for this calculation and I will post what I mean.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chez's point is that it wouldn't be the same '69 camaro.

I want to criticize your "body is a machine" idea especially with regards to the brain but I think we've been down that road already.

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think this is a bad assumption. Think of it in terms of time preference. In order to realize the infinite gain, you have to wait an infinite amount of time. How can you possibly put a positive value on something that you have to wait an infinite amount of time for?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! Finally a worthy answer /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But then I ask you, what's the difference if the time is 10 years? 1 year? 5 minutes? You're not the same person you will be 5 minutes from now, so why bother living anything but an extremely hedonistic life?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think this is a bad assumption. Think of it in terms of time preference. In order to realize the infinite gain, you have to wait an infinite amount of time. How can you possibly put a positive value on something that you have to wait an infinite amount of time for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay smart boy, let me rephrase it: Assume living forever will mean an infinite gain. I'm not saying you get the gain after you've lived forever, I'm saying assume life is a gain, and since it's forever, it's an infinite gain. You don't have to "wait forever" to start reaping the rewards.

[doucy]

Heh, well that's the problem with the argument, then.

IF I felt an infinite, immediate gain by being able to live forever, then maybe I should put all my efforts towards the objective in the OP. But I doubt people actually feel that way. Whether I die in 100 years or 400 years, that doesn't make much difference in how I feel today.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I could continue to live my life as I want to while everyone else is working to keep me alive forever. Freerider ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh right right, you meant the freerider argument. I agree with that. But I think it doesn't apply here.

First, your personal health isn't likely to be something others will do for you. At least not entirely. You have to eat your own food, work out, etc.

As for the progress of science, have in mind that since knowlede produces more knowledge exponentially, a little contribution may eventually become a large boost to scientific progress. If you encourage others to do the same then it could be a larger benefit.

Finally, there's something very important that you're not getting. The freerider argument applied to many situations is fine because you won't make enough of a difference to make your sacrifice worth it, but in this case, even an extremely small difference should be worth it, as your expected gain is likely to be infinite.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, well that's the problem with the argument, then.

IF I felt an infinite, immediate gain by being able to live forever, then maybe I should put all my efforts towards the objective in the OP. But I doubt people actually feel that way. Whether I die in 100 years or 400 years, that doesn't make much difference in how I feel today.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fair, but it's highly subjective let's agree. For some it may make a big difference. Especially when comparing 100 years to infinity. Ever heard of all those idiots who fall for religions simply because they promise an (unreal) eternal existence?

[Lestat]

I was actually going to make a post similar to this. I agree science will progress to where most people can live indefinitely, or at least a lot longer than we are now. As an atheist, I will feel very left out of this process (since it's not likely to happen within our lifetime).

So we die, while generations after us get to live forever. Of course, this is just in theory. They will soon become overpopulated and die as well.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
So we die, while generations after us get to live forever. Of course, this is just in theory. They will soon become overpopulated and die as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How pessimistic!

First, there's definitely a chance some of us will live long enough. Have in mind that the progress of science will help to keep us alive longer and longer, and as I said there will probably be a point where scientific progress on the matter goes fast enough that they can "add" years to your lifespan faster than you "consume" them.

And about the overpopulation issue... There's plenty on earth we aren't exploiting to the maximum usefulness. And then there's space stations. In any case, if capitalism is still kicking, there's no reason to assume this technology will be available to everyone, so overpopulation needn't happen the way you say.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point, but I could maximize my efforts to minimize the amount of chances I have to die, however I could still get struck by a car walking to the store which is fifty feet away.

So as for progressing science, this I can attempt.

But I will continue to smoke blunts and skateboard daily, for no matter how hard you try to minimize chances of death, it can be over-ridden in a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

You play poker?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chez's point is that it wouldn't be the same '69 camaro.

I want to criticize your "body is a machine" idea especially with regards to the brain but I think we've been down that road already.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is chez' point, but I think he is wrong, at least for any meaningful definition of 'same.'

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, well that's the problem with the argument, then.

IF I felt an infinite, immediate gain by being able to live forever, then maybe I should put all my efforts towards the objective in the OP. But I doubt people actually feel that way. Whether I die in 100 years or 400 years, that doesn't make much difference in how I feel today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we go with memories then all we need to do is find a way to transfer memories to someone else, should be much easier then keeping some body alive in perpituity.

but lets assume that its some continuity of memory that matters (like all personal identity solutions it has serious problems but lets ignore them), then I'm the same person as before to the extent that memories have continued. However a lot of my memories of 30 years ago have been lost and some of the memories I think I have of 30 years ago are incorrect. Rather than saying I'm the same person as 30 years ago it makes more sense to say I'm the same person to some extent and I'm more the same person that I was 10 years ago than I was 30 years ago.

We therefore have a diminshing interest in our future self although you could argue we have some duty to who we will become. It would reach zero fairly quickly (on a scale of immortality) or at least fairly quickly reach the point where my future self has no more 'sameness' than you and I.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! Finally a worthy answer /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But then I ask you, what's the difference if the time is 10 years? 1 year? 5 minutes? You're not the same person you will be 5 minutes from now, so why bother living anything but an extremely hedonistic life?

[/ QUOTE ]
as I said in my other response, I'm going with a diminishing sameness over time (though it has problems) and Hedonism is absolutely correct bearing that in mind.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we go with memories then all we need to do is find a way to transfer memories to someone else, should be much easier then keeping some body alive in perpituity.

but lets assume that its some continuity of memory that matters (like all personal identity solutions it has serious problems but lets ignore them), then I'm the same person as before to the extent that memories have continued. However a lot of my memories of 30 years ago have been lost and some of the memories I think I have of 30 years ago are incorrect. Rather than saying I'm the same person as 30 years ago it makes more sense to say I'm the same person to some extent and I'm more the same person that I was 10 years ago than I was 30 years ago.

We therefore have a diminshing interest in our future self although you could argue we have some duty to who we will become. It would reach zero fairly quickly (on a scale of immortality) or at least fairly quickly reach the point where my future self has no more 'sameness' than you and I.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...a parallel to another current thread, the 'now you' and the '1,000 years from now you' are two entirely different people, but at no point in between did you ever cease to exist, and that person enter into existence?

I think I'd be ok with the knowledge that it would seem to ME, living this life, that I would be the same person all the time. I might be wrong, as you point out, but I'd never realize it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument falls down because the person I will become in 10000 years time is not me. I gain nothing though I probably would thank the person I used to be.

The god version fails for other reasons but otherwise would work because of the soul which would be some sort of eternal me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...what? Of course it would still be you. All it requires is a continuity of memory, and I see no reason that is ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we go with memories then all we need to do is find a way to transfer memories to someone else, should be much easier then keeping some body alive in perpituity.

but lets assume that its some continuity of memory that matters (like all personal identity solutions it has serious problems but lets ignore them), then I'm the same person as before to the extent that memories have continued. However a lot of my memories of 30 years ago have been lost and some of the memories I think I have of 30 years ago are incorrect. Rather than saying I'm the same person as 30 years ago it makes more sense to say I'm the same person to some extent and I'm more the same person that I was 10 years ago than I was 30 years ago.

We therefore have a diminshing interest in our future self although you could argue we have some duty to who we will become. It would reach zero fairly quickly (on a scale of immortality) or at least fairly quickly reach the point where my future self has no more 'sameness' than you and I.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...a parallel to another current thread, the 'now you' and the '1,000 years from now you' are two entirely different people, but at no point in between did you ever cease to exist, and that person enter into existence?

I think I'd be ok with the knowledge that it would seem to ME, living this life, that I would be the same person all the time. I might be wrong, as you point out, but I'd never realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a continuum, there's no magical moments.

Maybe its just me, maybe you're too young but it doesn't seem to me that I'm the same person I used to be. I wonder if the young me, if it could see me now, would think hey! I should have given up so much more temporary fun so this geezer can have a bigger house.

chez

[godBoy]

This was my point, I don't see how it's even possible to say that a machine like the brain or nervous system could exist forever. This is obviously mere speculation because I have no clue other than at this point in time it's no where near possible.

Our body's are natural machines that will wear and breakdown, I don't think it's reasonable to assume with a 100% certainty that we will ever be able to 'repair' the vital parts of the human body that make me 'me'.

[m_the0ry]

I personally don't believe there will be a technological singularity. There are inherent quantum limitations on what technology can do. There is already a mathematical formula that posits the maximum amount of computational power that can fit inside of a specific volume and it (literally) requires harnessing the power of black holes. There's a ceiling on what we can do.

Technology progression is an S-curve (population curve, natural curve, stable equilibrium curve, whatever you want to call it) and we are nearing the inflection point but not an asymptote.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we die, while generations after us get to live forever. Of course, this is just in theory. They will soon become overpopulated and die as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How pessimistic!

First, there's definitely a chance some of us will live long enough. Have in mind that the progress of science will help to keep us alive longer and longer, and as I said there will probably be a point where scientific progress on the matter goes fast enough that they can "add" years to your lifespan faster than you "consume" them.

And about the overpopulation issue... There's plenty on earth we aren't exploiting to the maximum usefulness. And then there's space stations. In any case, if capitalism is still kicking, there's no reason to assume this technology will be available to everyone, so overpopulation needn't happen the way you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking about overpopulation! Even with our current lifespans and death rates, the earth's population is expanding at an ever alarming rate! You'd have to have one heck of a world-wide birth control awareness and responsible parenting campaign in place. Even if they were in full effect now, it will be a close race to see if we'd make it even with our current mortality rate (although I do think there's still time, we better get a move-on).

I believe you're grossly underestimating the problem of over population. The only shot is to get off this planet and either find new resources or self-sustaining ones. The chances that the human race will become instinct within the next million years is probably as close to 100% as you can get. That shouldn't be surprising. Almost all known species become extinct within that time.

And that's not at all pessimistic. If anything, it's optimistic. Personally, I think we'll bring extinction upon ourselves through destructive wars within the next couple of hundred years if not within our own lifetimes or our children's.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes. Science as of today can extend people's lives, and will continue to be able to extend them as it progresses. It's definitely a possibility that if science manages to progress faster than people deteriorate, people's lives can be extended long enough to reach point X (where death by natural causes can be avoided).

Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain. (not necessarily so, but at least there's a significant chance of this, whereas there probably isn't a significant chance that it will result in infinite loss, as you can just kill yourself anytime you want)

You see where I'm going. There's a slim chance that you have an infinite gain, out of a finite loss, so you should (rationally) put all your efforts towards this objective.

As I see it, this objective needs 2 things: 1) That you stay alive long enough. and 2) That science progresses fast enough.

So you should put all your efforts towards maximizing your health, minimizing your chances of dying and making world science progress as fast as possible.

Then again, we're not wholly rational beings, so I can understand that many of us (myself included), after being presented with this argument and finding it correct, still don't dedicate their whole lives to this end.

Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of Zeno's paradox of the racetrack: there is no way to cross the finish line in a finite period of time because you always have to traverse half the distance first, and there are infinite halves.

The value of infinite life might well be infinite, but if the likelihood of achieving it is infinitely small, it may not help us.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be joking about overpopulation! Even with our current lifespans and death rates, the earth's population is expanding at an ever alarming rate!

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection, baby... Survival of the fittest

If overpopulation becomes an issue as important as you say, I think we'll have to reconsider our extremely benevolent moral/ethical codes.

[PowerRangers]

Is dying such a bad thing? It is the natural order.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Is dying such a bad thing? It is the natural order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that bad, but thats not why.