Looking at it in a purely monetary way, a soul (being an eternal representation of you and all) would have an asymptotically infinite value, while $10 is $10. Even if there is a 0.001% chance of a soul existing (e.g. God existing, or some sort of Matrix-like scenario), then the expected value of keeping your soul would be on the same scale as: infinite⋅0.0001=infinite. Unless you view the value of a soul as non-infinite, and/or the chance that it exists as exactly 0%, it doesn’t make sense to sell it.
This seems like a classic Pascal’s Wager, and as such probably not a great strategy to follow—see “Pascal’s Mugging” for a discussion of what happens if you start letting people push you around by declaring things to have infinite (or incredibly large) utility in some unlikely scenario.
… but I can’t figure out how this comment got down to −9 points on that basis alone. I’m wondering if your username caused a bunch of people to assume—as I did initially—that you were a spambot, and thus downvote you extra-harshly after a bare skim of your actual comment.
I think it would be more standard to regard an item that is never sold as not being relevant for market mechanics.
But on the other hand if one doesn’t sell for any finite price one could argue that revealed preference would need to be infinite.
I think iti s popular to assume that all items in a finite universe are within a single Archimedian class ie that for all items there is some finite R so that R x dollar triggers a voluntary exchange.
Looking at it in a purely monetary way, a soul (being an eternal representation of you and all) would have an asymptotically infinite value, while $10 is $10. Even if there is a 0.001% chance of a soul existing (e.g. God existing, or some sort of Matrix-like scenario), then the expected value of keeping your soul would be on the same scale as: infinite⋅0.0001=infinite. Unless you view the value of a soul as non-infinite, and/or the chance that it exists as exactly 0%, it doesn’t make sense to sell it.
This seems like a classic Pascal’s Wager, and as such probably not a great strategy to follow—see “Pascal’s Mugging” for a discussion of what happens if you start letting people push you around by declaring things to have infinite (or incredibly large) utility in some unlikely scenario.
… but I can’t figure out how this comment got down to −9 points on that basis alone. I’m wondering if your username caused a bunch of people to assume—as I did initially—that you were a spambot, and thus downvote you extra-harshly after a bare skim of your actual comment.
I think it would be more standard to regard an item that is never sold as not being relevant for market mechanics.
But on the other hand if one doesn’t sell for any finite price one could argue that revealed preference would need to be infinite.
I think iti s popular to assume that all items in a finite universe are within a single Archimedian class ie that for all items there is some finite R so that R x dollar triggers a voluntary exchange.