I'm gonna go ahead and notice that I'm confused.

That being said, (and simplifying to the computers simulating one person rather than a universe)

Now I can't see any reason why the number of computers as opposed to the weights or the stickers should be the relevant input into the simulated beings' anthropic reasoning (assuming they knew on day 1 how they were going to be simulated on day 2).

I think that the number of computers is more relevant than weight and stickers in that it determines how many people are running. If you simulate someone on a really big computer, no matter how big the computer is, you're only simulating them once. Similarly, you can slap a different sticker on, and nothing would really change observer-wise.

If you simulate someone 5 times, then there are five simulations running, and there's 5 conscious experiences going on.

counting the number of distinct universes

I easily imagine that counting the number of distinct experiences is the proper procedure. Even if the person is on 5 computers, they're still experiencing the exact same things.

However, you can still intervene in any of those 5 simulations without affecting the other 4 simulations. That's probably part of the reason that I think that the fact that the person's on 5 different computers matters.

But that wouldn't contradict the idea that, until an intervention makes things different, only distinct universes should counted.

(ii) you need to somehow justify an arbitrary choice of 'bridge law' (which I don't think is possible).

I'm trying to figure out if there are any betting rules which would make you want to choose different ways of assigning probability, kind of like how this was approached.

All the ones that I've come up with so far involve scoring across universes, which seems like a cheap way out, and still doesn't boil down to predictions that the universe's inhabitants can test.

"bridge law"

I like this term.