This result has even stronger consequences than that the Linear Utility Hypothesis is false, namely that utility is bounded.
Not necessary. You don’t need to suppose bounded utility to explain rejecting Pascal’s muggle.
My reason for rejecting pascal muggle is this.
If there exists a set of states E_j such that:
P(E_j) < epsilon.
There does not exist E_k (E_k is not a subset of E_j and P(E_k) < epsilon).
Then I ignore E_j in decision making in singleton decision problems. In iterated decision problems, the value for epsilon depends on the number of iterations.
I don’t have a name for this principle (and it is an ad-hoc patch I added to my decision theory to prevent EU from being dominated by tiny probabilities of vast utilities).
This patch is different from bounded utility, because you might ignore a set of atates in a singleton problem, but consider same set in an iterated problem.
Not necessary. You don’t need to suppose bounded utility to explain rejecting Pascal’s muggle.
My reason for rejecting pascal muggle is this.
If there exists a set of states E_j such that:
P(E_j) < epsilon.
There does not exist E_k (E_k is not a subset of E_j and P(E_k) < epsilon).
Then I ignore E_j in decision making in singleton decision problems. In iterated decision problems, the value for epsilon depends on the number of iterations.
I don’t have a name for this principle (and it is an ad-hoc patch I added to my decision theory to prevent EU from being dominated by tiny probabilities of vast utilities).
This patch is different from bounded utility, because you might ignore a set of atates in a singleton problem, but consider same set in an iterated problem.