The “original” bad event corresponds to a stubbed toe in the linked comment, something whose disutility is certainly finite.
If my view of logarithmic quantification for suffering is valid, then the stubbed-toe would be of vastly greater ‘anti-utilon’ quantity than the dust-speck in the eye; and torture that much moreso.
finite badness of the former event is also clear from that the latter event (finitely bad) is said to be “ever-so-slightly-less-bad” than the former.
That holds true and relevant under Unknown’s context and metrics, but not under mine; a stubbed-toe plus a dust-specking is “ever so slightly worse” than a stubbed-toe alone—but because this has no asymptotic limit, Unknown’s ‘counterintuitive result’ is irrelevant; it does not manifest.
If my view of logarithmic quantification for suffering is valid, then the stubbed-toe would be of vastly greater ‘anti-utilon’ quantity than the dust-speck in the eye; and torture that much moreso.
Is it meant to be a refutation of my claim that disutility of a stubbed toe is finite? Else, I don’t see the relevance.
Unknown’s ‘counterintuitive result’ is irrelevant; it does not manifest
Remember that originally you have written that it (more precisely Zack_M_Davis’s restatement of it) is not counter-intuitive, not that it is irrelevant. Irrelevance was never disputed.
If my view of logarithmic quantification for suffering is valid, then the stubbed-toe would be of vastly greater ‘anti-utilon’ quantity than the dust-speck in the eye; and torture that much moreso.
That holds true and relevant under Unknown’s context and metrics, but not under mine; a stubbed-toe plus a dust-specking is “ever so slightly worse” than a stubbed-toe alone—but because this has no asymptotic limit, Unknown’s ‘counterintuitive result’ is irrelevant; it does not manifest.
Is it meant to be a refutation of my claim that disutility of a stubbed toe is finite? Else, I don’t see the relevance.
Remember that originally you have written that it (more precisely Zack_M_Davis’s restatement of it) is not counter-intuitive, not that it is irrelevant. Irrelevance was never disputed.