I don't know of a commonly used name. I haven't written up anything elsewhere and I haven't seen anything else written up. I've heard some totally awesome thinking on the subject but it's not and won't be online. Someday some of the relevant thoughts might be inferred from some aspects of some proposed versions of some future decision theories, but most people don't pay much attention to most aspects of most decision theories. For now the best argument for its plausibility might be "It's an effing superintelligence.". I admit that's not entirely convincing. In the interim maybe some arguments about how like we can get more information per bit these days with quantum than we thought we could and this might continue for awhile longer, or something, would be convincing, especially if someone posits that "fundamental" limits of computation are actually fundamental or something.

Of note is that debates about personal identity eventually enter into the equation, but there's still a lot of debate to be had before reaching that point. Many worlds also makes some of the identity debate less relevant because you have to argue about the superintelligence getting the distribution of low-level psychological details wrong and not the presence or absence of individual details. And that process itself happens across many branches. Thinking discretely about continuous things---like thinking timefully about timeless things---is sometimes wrong, and often not even wrong.