Thinking about for some time my feeling has been that resources are about fungibility implicitly embedded in a context of trade, multiple agents (very broadly construed. E.g. an agent in time can be thought of as multiple agents cooperating intertemporally perhaps).
A resource over time has the property that I can spend it now or I can spend it later. Glibly, one could say the operational meaning of the resource arises from the intertemporal bargaining of the agent.
Perhaps it’s useful to distinguish several levels of resources and resource-like quantities.
Discrete vs continuous, tradeable / meaningful to different agents, ?? Fungibility, ?? Temporal and spatial locatedness, ?? Additivity?, submodularity ?
Addendum: another thing to consider is that the input of the vNM theorem is in some sense more complicated than the output.
The output is just a utility function u: X → R, while your input is a preference order on the very infinite set of lotteries (= probability distributions ) L(X).
Thinking operationally about a preference ordering on a space of distribution is a little wacky.
It means you are willing to trade off uncertain options against one another. For this to be a meaningful choice would seem to necessitate some sort of (probabilistic) world model.
Thinking about for some time my feeling has been that resources are about fungibility implicitly embedded in a context of trade, multiple agents (very broadly construed. E.g. an agent in time can be thought of as multiple agents cooperating intertemporally perhaps).
A resource over time has the property that I can spend it now or I can spend it later. Glibly, one could say the operational meaning of the resource arises from the intertemporal bargaining of the agent.
Perhaps it’s useful to distinguish several levels of resources and resource-like quantities.
Discrete vs continuous, tradeable / meaningful to different agents, ?? Fungibility, ?? Temporal and spatial locatedness, ?? Additivity?, submodularity ?
Addendum: another thing to consider is that the input of the vNM theorem is in some sense more complicated than the output. The output is just a utility function u: X → R, while your input is a preference order on the very infinite set of lotteries (= probability distributions ) L(X).
Thinking operationally about a preference ordering on a space of distribution is a little wacky. It means you are willing to trade off uncertain options against one another. For this to be a meaningful choice would seem to necessitate some sort of (probabilistic) world model.