the justification for reasoning anthropically is that the set Ω of observers in your reference class maximizes its combined winnings on bets if all members of Ω reason anthropically
That is a justification for it, yes.
When most of the members of Ω arise from merely non-actual possible worlds, this reasoning is defensible.
Roko, on what do you base that statement? Non-actual observers do not participate in bets.
The SIA is not an example of anthropic reasoning; anthropic implies observers, not “non-actual observers”.
See this post for an example of the difference, showing why the SIA is false.
That is a justification for it, yes.
Roko, on what do you base that statement? Non-actual observers do not participate in bets.
The SIA is not an example of anthropic reasoning; anthropic implies observers, not “non-actual observers”.
See this post for an example of the difference, showing why the SIA is false.