If you agree that starting from the assumption that a utility function exists leads to being always able to define one, then you can’t simultaneously take the position that there can’t be two incommensurate things.
You could argue that utility functions are “too powerful” on the grounds that being able to explain anything is equivalent to being able to explain nothing.
> Why don't we just create utility functions to solve politics?
What do you mean by “solve”? I reckon the utility function of politics is approximately “democracy” in many cases.
> it could very well be that human intelligence is [unsolvable in terms of well-defined mathematization] too
That’s equivalent to saying “whatever human intelligence depends on isn’t limited to the laws of physics” as the laws of physics are written in maths, and as we invent new maths for new understanding of physics, that new understanding is also available for modelling our own minds, as they are physical objects. A similar argument also applies if we have an immortal soul. ;)
> If you agree that starting from the assumption that a utility function exists leads to being always able to define one, then you can’t simultaneously take the position that there can’t be two incommensurate things.
> What do you mean by “solve”? I reckon the utility function of politics is approximately “democracy” in many cases.
I don't understand what you're getting at here and I feel like it's missing the broader point I'm making anyways.
But we haven't quite solved every problem in the world by creating a utility function, have we?
Why is that? Could it be that some domains resist mathematization because the objects are incommensurate?
Why don't we just create utility functions to solve politics?
We cant, because politics is unsolvable in terms of well-defined mathematization and it could very well be that human intelligence is like that too.