Have you ever noticed how many canonical "paradoxes" just sort of evaporate if you decline to recognize Bayesian inference as a thing that works
Hmm so it looks like you started with some absurd priors and you were able to use them to prove some absurd conclusions. Now you're acting like this is a fundamental challenge to the idea of "rationality" and you've made a wikipedia page. Seems to me like you just selected some absurd priors. At absolute most what you've proven is that game theory kind of sucks
(This might be kind of vague so this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging A shocking number of problems of this type that make me immediately respond with "why do you think this is a difficult problem?" seem to wind up mentioning Eliezer Yudkowsky when you look into why people are talking about them.)
Pascal's mugging - Wikipedia

INTERNET RATIONALIST: Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a hyperintelligent artificial intelligence–

ME: No

INTERNET RATIONALIST: What

ME: I am declining to imagine the hyperintelligent artificial intelligence.

INTERNET RATIONALIST:

ME: I'm thinking about birds right now

INTERNET RATIONALIST:

ME: Dozens of crows, perched atop great standing stones

@mcc You know, I already knew Roko's Basilisk was stupid, but for some reason it never occurred to me before now that it's just self-proclaimed rationalists reinventing God and Hell the hard way.

@jwisser @mcc oh oh this also applies to the "we're a simulation" people too!

A higher power (literally from a higher dimension) created us in their image, as above so below, and all the other religious fun but with math!

@tedivm @jwisser right. You can make a probabilistic argument we are almost certainly in a simulation by simply defining a sufficiently arbitrary ensemble

@tedivm @jwisser @mcc

But who simulates our simulator? It's dimensions all the way down! And up!