Thanks for posting this! Is this list drawn up hodge-podge, or is there some underlying process that generated it? How likely do you think it is to be exhaustive?

It looks like your list is somewhat methodical, arising from combinations of metaethical desiderata/varyingly optimistic projections of the project of value loading?

Are you able to put probabilities to the possibilities?

For example, it turns out there is no one decision theory that does better than every other decision theory in every situation, and there is no obvious or widely-agreed-upon way to determine which one "wins" overall.

I'm very confident that no decision theory does better than every other in every situation, insomuch as the decision theories are actually implemented. For any implementing agent, I can put that agent in the adversarial world where Omega instantly destroys any agent implementing that decision theory, assuming it has an instantiation in some world where that makes sense (e.g. where 'instantly' and 'destroy' make sense). This is what we would expect on grounds of Created Already In Motion and general No Free Lunch principles.

The only way I currently see to resolve this is something along the lines of having a measure of performance over instantations of the decision theory, and some scoring rule over that measure over instantiations. Might be other ways, though.

Eliezer says that there are moral facts about what values every intelligence in the multiverse should have, but only humans are likely to discover these facts and be motivated by them.

Just to check, you mean

(A) For all I, there exists some M such that I should observe M

and not

(B) There exists some set of moral facts M, such that for each intelligence I, I should observe M

right?