No, it doesn’t. I think you folk are all barking up the wrong tree.
The case for unbounded utilities rests on brains actually using something like surreal numbers to represent infinite utilities. I don’t think there’s any significant evolutionary pressure favouring such a thing—or any evidence that humans actually behave that way—but at least that is a theoretical possibility.
Absent such evidence, I think Occam’s razor favours simple finite utilities that map onto the reinforcement-learning machinery evident in the brain.
Exactly. That is becaues the stuff about the finite human brain represeting unboundedly huge utilities is obvious nonsense. That is why people are roping in Omega and infinite time—desperation.
The Peano axioms are finite. The numbers they describe are unbounded. Finite human brains understand this.
What does that have to do with how human-equivalent utility functions work?
Turing machine tapes are unbounded, but real things are not—they are finite. The human brain is finite and tiny. It is not remotely unbounded.
It shows that your conclusions from human brains being finite don’t follow.
No, it doesn’t. I think you folk are all barking up the wrong tree.
The case for unbounded utilities rests on brains actually using something like surreal numbers to represent infinite utilities. I don’t think there’s any significant evolutionary pressure favouring such a thing—or any evidence that humans actually behave that way—but at least that is a theoretical possibility.
Absent such evidence, I think Occam’s razor favours simple finite utilities that map onto the reinforcement-learning machinery evident in the brain.
Note that I never said or implied that it was.
You said:
Exactly. That is becaues the stuff about the finite human brain represeting unboundedly huge utilities is obvious nonsense. That is why people are roping in Omega and infinite time—desperation.