While the essay eventually explores some interesting topics, the opening statements claiming there are explanations from physics that connect these infinities t

While the essay eventually explores some interesting topics, the opening statements claiming there are explanations from physics that connect these infinities to our actual universe were fairly ameteurish and misleading. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, for instance, provides clear math on how to reason about quantities as the universe splits into more universes: we integrate after multiplying by the probability of each branch. No credible physical theory is proposing we double the amount of mass and energy in the universe whenever we measure the spin of an electron. Calling that split universe "two universes" instead of "two half-universes" is fine for a casual explanation, but if you want to do correct math with this result, you need to start with the correct math too! Once you make that adjustment, all this talk in about "finite benefits don't matter compared to infinite benefits" can be translated as "benefits with probability zero don't matter compared to benefits with non-zero probability". Much more palatable. There are still interesting conversations about benefits which could last for infinite time. But there, the crux is in the "could". These thought experiments always bake in assumptions at dozens of levels which say "this factor in my model will last for infinite time". When you consider in our ignorance about what the future will hold, I've yet to see a convincing example where we could truly consider a finite action as having infinite utility. I'm certainly open to it, I just haven't seen it.