If there is an objective morality, I also expect an objective method for making decisions under moral uncertainty. Math that is discovered rather than invented does not contain special-case handling.
A reasonable prior puts nonzero mass on any hypothesis its holder can imagine, else they could not be convinced of it. To demonstrate that the content of the hypotheses must not directly touch, I picked a hypothesis that contains an infinity.
So I’d expect that method to naturally handle infinities just like insects or humans, in a way that adds up to normality. As the masses on whether insect lives are net good or net bad oscillate around 10% each, the method shouldn’t pivot on a dime between maximizing and minimizing the number of insects, either.
If there is an objective morality, I also expect an objective method for making decisions under moral uncertainty. Math that is discovered rather than invented does not contain special-case handling.
A reasonable prior puts nonzero mass on any hypothesis its holder can imagine, else they could not be convinced of it. To demonstrate that the content of the hypotheses must not directly touch, I picked a hypothesis that contains an infinity.
So I’d expect that method to naturally handle infinities just like insects or humans, in a way that adds up to normality. As the masses on whether insect lives are net good or net bad oscillate around 10% each, the method shouldn’t pivot on a dime between maximizing and minimizing the number of insects, either.