Living Forever, EV Calculation

AWoodside · #1 07-27-2007, 04:38 AM

Lets say that there is a non-zero probability of functionally achieving immortality (or a profoundly drastic increase in health-span. if you prefer) through technological progress within your (current) lifespan. How high would this probability have to be before you would devout the rest of your life to reaching that end?

My answer, for those who care, is that the smallest resolvable positive probability would make it worth it, and that I think there is a significantly higher probability than that.

wtfsvi · #2 07-27-2007, 07:05 AM

Have you considered bankroll?

kerowo · #3 07-27-2007, 07:33 AM

Need more information. Wouldn't want to spend a boat load getting it only to have it mean living for 40 years with tubes in my holes watching the 2050 version of Golden Girls over and over again.

tomdemaine · #4 07-27-2007, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you considered bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think that your ROR is pretty big on this one.

Metric · #5 07-27-2007, 10:15 AM

Agree that this scenario is a distinct possibility. However, I don't think EV is a terribly useful way to think about it. Devoting the rest of your life to reaching that end probably doesn't significantly change the probability that it's going to happen. I would guess that simply maintaining an awareness of the relevant technological trends, having a reasonable amount of money at your disposal, and not killing yourself off prematurely will account for almost all of the probability that you'll transcend standard human mortality.

AWoodside · #6 07-27-2007, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Need more information. Wouldn't want to spend a boat load getting it only to have it mean living for 40 years with tubes in my holes watching the 2050 version of Golden Girls over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume that the technology that enables an indefinite lifespan also enables an indefinite health-span. You'll be as healthy as you were (will be?) at 25 years old or perhaps much healthier.

AWoodside · #7 07-27-2007, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Agree that this scenario is a distinct possibility. However, I don't think EV is a terribly useful way to think about it. Devoting the rest of your life to reaching that end probably doesn't significantly change the probability that it's going to happen. I would guess that simply maintaining an awareness of the relevant technological trends, having a reasonable amount of money at your disposal, and not killing yourself off prematurely will account for almost all of the probability that you'll transcend standard human mortality.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you might not be able to have a significant impact on whether it happens, I think you could reasonably have a large effect on when it happens. There are a lot of extremely smart and competent people right now interested in this field but not pursuing it due to a lack of funding and lack of academic prestige. Even if you aren't a brilliant scientist if you can make more money than most there is room for you to make a huge impact.

Even that bracketed, you can choose to live your life in a way that dramatically improves your own personal chances of making it. Partly through accumulating wealth, but mainly living a hyper-healthy lifestyle.

tshort · #8 07-27-2007, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My answer, for those who care, is that the smallest resolvable positive probability would make it worth it,

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is this case, it's a lot cheaper to have "faith in Jesus."

AWoodside · #9 07-27-2007, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My answer, for those who care, is that the smallest resolvable positive probability would make it worth it,

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is this case, it's a lot cheaper to have "faith in Jesus."

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be true if there weren't better options. I think my chances of living forever due to exponential technological trends continuing is much much higher than my chances of living forever through faith in Jesus. So much so that the increased effort required in the former case is basically negligable.

chezlaw · #10 07-27-2007, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My answer, for those who care, is that the smallest resolvable positive probability would make it worth it,

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is this case, it's a lot cheaper to have "faith in Jesus."

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be true if there weren't better options. I think my chances of living forever due to exponential technological trends continuing is much much higher than my chances of living forever through faith in Jesus. So much so that the increased effort required in the former case is basically negligable.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only way the analogy with pascal's wager holds is if there's some chance that attempting to live forever could result in you not living forever when you otherwise would have done - this could happen when the possibility gets nearer but seems unlikely at the moment.

However I think one of you implied premises is mistaken as if 'you' live a million years, it won't be 'you' anymore.

I'd only invest part of myself for some future self and the ev calculation is way against me (40+). I do think this will change in the not too distant future but not for me [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

chez