Unless you have a good reason to believe the opposite hypotheses balance each other out to log₁₀(3^^^^3) decimal places, I don’t think that line of argument buys you much.
The information value of which outcome outweighs the other is HUGE. More expected lives hinge on a 0.01 shift in the balance of probabilities than would live if we merely colonize the visible universe with humans the size of quarks.
Unless you have a good reason to believe the opposite hypotheses balance each other out to log₁₀(3^^^^3) decimal places, I don’t think that line of argument buys you much.
I don’t think I have to believe that, what’s wrong with just being agnostic as to which hypothesis outweighs the other?
The information value of which outcome outweighs the other is HUGE. More expected lives hinge on a 0.01 shift in the balance of probabilities than would live if we merely colonize the visible universe with humans the size of quarks.