I think the simpler solution is just to use a bounded utility function. There are several things suggesting we do >this, and I really don’t see any reason to not do so, instead of going through contortions to make unbounded >utility work.
But that’s essentially already the case. Just consider the bound to be 3^^^^3 utilons, or even an illimited number of them. Those are not infinite, but still allow all the situations and arguments made above.
Paradoxes of infinity weren’t the issue in this case.
But that’s essentially already the case. Just consider the bound to be 3^^^^3 utilons, or even an illimited number of them. Those are not infinite, but still allow all the situations and arguments made above.
Paradoxes of infinity weren’t the issue in this case.
Again, individual utility numbers are not meaningful.
I’m not sure which “situations and arguments” you’re saying this still allows. It doesn’t allow the divergent sum that started all this.