In a previous post, I discussed the “weighting” of infinity,” and argued that it was never rational for a True Immortal to put his or her life at risk, while for a Hafeem or ordinary mortal circumstances could arise in which it could make rational sense to do so. Now, however, I find that I disagree with myself.
In my argument, I considered the percentage of one’s life already lived, and noted that, at any given age, a True Immortal has lived zero percent of his or her potential lifespan; in comparison, a Hafeem or ordinary mortal has already lived a finite percentage. I therefore argued that sufficient value in the moment can multiply that finite value to a weight equal to the amount at risk, thus making risk taking rational. However, no weighting of zero percent can balance the remainder put at risk, and therefore a True Immortal could never rationally take risk.
What I failed to consider, however, is that all actions (or inaction) involves risk. Thus, for a True Immortal, even the safest behavior creates risk. If, for example, simply doing nothing incurs a .0001% risk of dying in an earthquake, a True Immortal incurs a .0001% risk of infinite loss doing nothing. Since any percent of infinity is still infinity, such a person is always risking too much. Therefore, it is not clear that increased riskiness of behavior changes anything. (My argument still holds for mortals or Hafeems, for whom .0001% of remaining life is quite small.) — Stephen