From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Fri May 04 2001 - 20:01:34 MDT
James Rogers enriched the signal by noting,
> In a nutshell, Pascal's Wager suffers from having the potential for
> infinite mutually-exclusive choices, only one of which is correct, at a
> finite cost. Therefore, the expected benefit must approach zero when
> applied to the entire space of possible religions. With cryonics, you have
> a very finite number of choices for a finite price. While the potential
> reward isn't infinite with cryonics, the cost/benefit ratio is much more
> favorable.
To your excellent observations I'd add that Pascal's Wager pays off best to
those who create gods (something obviously beyond the ken of Pascal and his
minions).
τΏτ
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:29 MST