And if we’re giving you an actually infinite brain, the part about how infinite expectations of finite outcomes are more conservative arguments than actual infinities goes away.
My post also covers two impossibility theorems that don’t depend on anyone having arbitrary precision or unbounded or infinite representations of anything:[1]
Stochastic Dominance, Anteriority and Impartiality are jointly inconsistent.
Stochastic Dominance, Separability and Compensation (Impartiality) are jointly inconsistent.
The proofs are also of course finite, and the prospects used have finite representations, even though they represent infinitely many possible outcomes and unbounded populations.
My post also covers two impossibility theorems that don’t depend on anyone having arbitrary precision or unbounded or infinite representations of anything:[1]
Stochastic Dominance, Anteriority and Impartiality are jointly inconsistent.
Stochastic Dominance, Separability and Compensation (Impartiality) are jointly inconsistent.
The proofs are also of course finite, and the prospects used have finite representations, even though they represent infinitely many possible outcomes and unbounded populations.
The actual outcome would be an unbounded (across outcomes) representation of itself, but that doesn’t undermine the argument.
I personally think unbounded utility functions don’t work, I’m not claiming otherwise here, the comment above is about the thought experiment.