“All the examples in your paper assume that the value of a commodity is linear in the amount of it” No, this is only assumed for the economic value, and does not change the finitude of the value. Also see the discussion about exponential versus polynomial growth.
”If I do not want to sell my stuffed toy for any price” See the discussion of lexicographic utility.
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.
“All the examples in your paper assume that the value of a commodity is linear in the amount of it” No, this is only assumed for the economic value, and does not change the finitude of the value. Also see the discussion about exponential versus polynomial growth.
”If I do not want to sell my stuffed toy for any price” See the discussion of lexicographic utility.
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.