You are saying that you can always redefine the value function to be finite, while maintaining the lexicographic order.
Fair enough, but then your “value” is no longer a measurement of the amount of effort/money/resources you would be willing to pay for something. It is just a real function with the same order relationship on the set of objects.
It is certainly is possible to construct a “value” function which is finite over all the possible states of the universe, I totally agree. But is this class of functions the only logically possible choice?
>then your “value” is no longer a measurement of the amount of effort/money/resources you would be willing to pay for something
No, that’s exactly what I’m saying isn’t true. If the preference order for bundles of goods (which include effort/money/etc.) doesn’t change, no decision—including tradeoffs between effort/money/resources—will change.
You are saying that you can always redefine the value function to be finite, while maintaining the lexicographic order.
Fair enough, but then your “value” is no longer a measurement of the amount of effort/money/resources you would be willing to pay for something. It is just a real function with the same order relationship on the set of objects.
It is certainly is possible to construct a “value” function which is finite over all the possible states of the universe, I totally agree. But is this class of functions the only logically possible choice?
>then your “value” is no longer a measurement of the amount of effort/money/resources you would be willing to pay for something
No, that’s exactly what I’m saying isn’t true. If the preference order for bundles of goods (which include effort/money/etc.) doesn’t change, no decision—including tradeoffs between effort/money/resources—will change.
Ok, now I get it.