What do you mean by a sufficiently large multiverse? If your first choice loses many paperclips in 40% of cases and wins’s few in the rest, you would take it and a maximizer wouldn’t.
If you were truly alone in the multiverse, this algorithm would take a bet that had a 51% chance of winning them 1 paperclip, and a 49% chance of loosing 1000000 of them.
If independant versions of this bet are taking place in 3^^^3 parallel universes, it will refuse.
For any finite bet, for all sufficiently large N If the agent is using TDT and is faced with the choice of whether to make this bet in N multiverses, it will behave like an expected utility maximizer.
What do you mean by a sufficiently large multiverse? If your first choice loses many paperclips in 40% of cases and wins’s few in the rest, you would take it and a maximizer wouldn’t.
If you were truly alone in the multiverse, this algorithm would take a bet that had a 51% chance of winning them 1 paperclip, and a 49% chance of loosing 1000000 of them.
If independant versions of this bet are taking place in 3^^^3 parallel universes, it will refuse.
For any finite bet, for all sufficiently large N If the agent is using TDT and is faced with the choice of whether to make this bet in N multiverses, it will behave like an expected utility maximizer.