Sure, though the more important part of the exercise is the analysis. Same thing with the Drake Equation. And in both cases the terms aren't immune to new information, nor can you expect to honestly get away with assigning anything you want. You might have a different list of criteria or different probabilities, but the point is to lay them down and give a reason why you think it's unlikely enough not to pay the small sum of money. It also lets others argue with you over your estimates, because they might have information you don't, now or in future years. Several of Hanson's criteria can have their probabilities increase towards 1 or decrease towards 0 depending on what humanity does in the coming years.
> And in both cases the terms aren't immune to new information, nor can you expect to honestly get away with assigning anything you want.
Actually, you can get away with assigning anything you want. That's hidden in the assumption that the criteria he lists are more-or-less independent.
> You might have a different list of criteria or different probabilities, but the point is to lay them down and give a reason why you think it's unlikely enough not to pay the small sum of money.
You've got the burden of proof backward. The cryonics advocates are the ones trying to argue that cryonics will work with sufficiently high probability to make investing in it worthwhile. The grandparent cited 5% as if that figure had even one significant digit -- which it doesn't, by Hanson's own calculation.
> It also lets others argue with you over your estimates, because they might have information you don't, now or in future years.
It also lets others argue even if they don't have new information, which just wastes everyone's time. The same phenomena also occurs with the Drake equation.
