Both involve a relatively low fixed cost in exchange for a return that is extremely valuable but has very low probability. I assume most people here don't accept the Pascal's Mugging argument, so I'm curious why cryogenics seems to have much more buy-in.

# 3 Answers

Cryogenics may be low probability, but it’s certainly not *very* low in the way Pascal’s mugging is.

In addition to the probability differences, there's an exclusivity element to cryo that Pascal's Mugging (and the original Pascal's Wager) doesn't have.

The Pascal scenarios are repeatable - there are an infinite number of potential muggers (or possible gods/afterlives), and accepting one likely means you should accept many. If they demand exclusivity, it's unclear which to choose, and that further reduces the probability estimate of success. Cryonics is limited to one bet: it works or it doesn't, but you're not going to be tempted to commit your body/brain to multiple destinations.

Hey, isn't that a *frequentist* perspective? Shoo, heretic! /s

There is a lot of related discussion on this post.

To elaborate on this, the odds of cryonics succeeding are estimated to be between .23% in the pessimistic scenario and 15% in the optimistic. Contrast this with the 1 in quadrillion (or a similarly high number) chance of the mugger being honest in Pascal's mugging.