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.)

@mcc A lot of the issue is also to do with being deliberately sloppy about 'possible' like, do you mean modality, and if so which one? Or is it some kind of quantification, and if so what are the details? Or is it a simple predicate? - eg doing moral reasoning that treats an imagined 10^80 possible intelligences in cyberheaven as real actual present existing people, which is nonsense.

@mcc They have to selectively move between meanings of 'possible' at different parts of their argument and their deliberate sloppiness (and logically invalid moves) are disguised with a heavy layer of the aesthetic of logic.