Again, that’s a problem with your tool, not the situation. If I offer you 10 utility for 0 opportunity cost as a once off offer, you take it. You don’t need to divide by 0.
I’m glad you agree you should wait forever in the utilon-trading game, which after all has 0 opportunity cost in exchange for a free utilon.
that has been more than adequately addressed several times on the comment threads.
That’s because it is a once off offer. You can’t get stuck in a loop by accepting it.
“The argument that you can’t choose infinity, so you can’t win anyway, is just a distraction. Suppose perfect rationality didn’t exist for a particular scenario, what would this imply about this scenario? The answer is that it would imply that there was no way of conclusively winning, because, if there was, then an agent following this strategy would be perfectly rational for this scenario. Yet, somehow people are trying to twist it around the other way and conclude that it disproves my argument. You can’t disprove an argument by proving what it predicts”
I’m glad you agree you should wait forever in the utilon-trading game, which after all has 0 opportunity cost in exchange for a free utilon.
Then address it. Copy and paste, if necessary.
That’s because it is a once off offer. You can’t get stuck in a loop by accepting it.
“The argument that you can’t choose infinity, so you can’t win anyway, is just a distraction. Suppose perfect rationality didn’t exist for a particular scenario, what would this imply about this scenario? The answer is that it would imply that there was no way of conclusively winning, because, if there was, then an agent following this strategy would be perfectly rational for this scenario. Yet, somehow people are trying to twist it around the other way and conclude that it disproves my argument. You can’t disprove an argument by proving what it predicts”
It’s not what it predicts, it’s what you say about what it predicts, that is problematic.