If your utility function is bounded and you discount the future, then pick an amount of time after now, epsilon, such that the discounting by then is negligible. Then imagine that the box disappears if you don’t open it by then. at t = now + epsilon * 2^-1, the utilons double. At 2^-2, they double again. etc.
But if your discounting is so great that you do not care about the future at all, I guess you’ve got me.
This isn’t the St. Petersburg paradox (though I almost mentioned it) because in that, you make your decision once at the beginning.
If your utility function is bounded and you discount the future, then pick an amount of time after now, epsilon, such that the discounting by then is negligible. Then imagine that the box disappears if you don’t open it by then. at t = now + epsilon * 2^-1, the utilons double. At 2^-2, they double again. etc.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but I don’t see how this scheme is compatible with a bounded utility function. For any bound n, there will be a time prior to epsilon where the utilons in the box will be greater than n.
When you say “At 2^-2...”, I read that as “At now + epsilon 2^-1 + epsilon 2^-2...”. Is that what you meant?
If your utility function is bounded and you discount the future, then pick an amount of time after now, epsilon, such that the discounting by then is negligible. Then imagine that the box disappears if you don’t open it by then. at t = now + epsilon * 2^-1, the utilons double. At 2^-2, they double again. etc.
But if your discounting is so great that you do not care about the future at all, I guess you’ve got me.
This isn’t the St. Petersburg paradox (though I almost mentioned it) because in that, you make your decision once at the beginning.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but I don’t see how this scheme is compatible with a bounded utility function. For any bound n, there will be a time prior to epsilon where the utilons in the box will be greater than n.
When you say “At 2^-2...”, I read that as “At now + epsilon 2^-1 + epsilon 2^-2...”. Is that what you meant?
yeah, that’s what I meant. Also, instead of doubling, make it so they exponentially decay toward the bound.