The idea that maximally-coherent agents look like squiggle-maximizers raises the question: what would it look like for humans to become maximally coherent?

One answer, which Yudkowsky gives here, is that conscious experiences are just a "weird and more abstract and complicated pattern that matter can be squiggled into".

But that seems to be in tension with another claim he makes, that there's no way for one agent's conscious experiences to become "more real" except at the expense of other conscious agents—a claim which, according to him, motivates average utilitarianism across the multiverse.

Clearly a squiggle-maximizer would not be an average squigglean. So what's the disanalogy here? It seems like @Eliezer Yudkowsky is basically using SSA, but comparing between possible multiverses—i.e. when facing the choice between creating agent A or not, you look at the set of As in the multiverse where you decided yes, and compare it to the set of As in the multiverse where you decided no, and (if you're deciding for the good of A) you pick whichever one gives A a better time on average.

Yudkowsky has written before (can't find the link) that he takes this approach because alternatives would entail giving up on predictions about his future experiences—e.g. constantly predicting he's a Boltzmann brain and will dissolve in the next second. But this argument by Wei Dai shows that agents which reason in this way can be money-pumped by creating arbitrarily short-lived copies of them. Based on this I claim that Yudkowsky's preferences are incoherent, and that the only coherent thing to do here is to "expect to be" a given copy in proportion to the resources it will have available, as anthropic decision theory claims. (Incidentally, this also explains why we're at the hinge of history.)

But this is just an answer, it doesn't dissolve the problem. What could? Some wild guesses:

1. You are allowed to have preferences about the external world, and you are allowed to have preferences about your "thread of experience"—you're just not allowed to have both. The incoherence comes from trying to combine the two; the coherent thing to do would be to put them into different agents, who will then end up in very different parts of the multiverse.
2. Another way of framing this: you are allowed to be a decision-maker, and you are allowed to be a repository of welfare, but you're not allowed to be both (on pain of incoherence/being dutch-booked).
3. Something totally different: the problem here is that we don't have intuitive experience of being agents which can copy themselves, shut down copies, re-merge, etc. If we did, then maybe SSA would seem as silly as expecting to end up in a different universe whenever we went to sleep.
4. Actually, maybe the operative thing we lack experience with is not just splitting into different subagents, but rather merging together afterwards. What does it feel like to have been thousands of different parallel agents, and now be a single agent with their unified experiences? What sort of identity would one construct in that situation? Maybe this is an important part of dissolving the problem.