In referencing marginal rates of substitution in his specification of the Vienna problem, Hayek makes utility schedules the boundary of economic calculation, hence the referent data available to any proposed solution.

Austrian Economists then proceed to make solution of this problem impossible by discovering that utility cannot be quantified. Nothing annoys an Austrian more than SFEcon's contention that utility is readily measured because, you see, it simply cannot be:

Because utility functions cannot be quantified and each acting agent has free will to change their subjective unquantifiable preferences unpredictably, the SFEcon model has no foundation in social reality and can neither explain nor predict any economic phenomena. It certainly couldn’t determine the value of anything, no matter what numbers it threw out. I suppose it is possible to construct a mathematical model of Hell, but why bother. The bottom line on theorizing is that there are no constants in economics that allow the use of mathematics as anything other than a pedagogical device or logical helpmate for conceptualizing economic relationships. If you really want to learn how market economies harness social cooperation to produce value and wealth, your time would be better spent studying Austrian School economists such as F.A. Hayek. Give up playing with your computer and start by reading Hayek's collection of essays, Individualism and Economic Order.¹

(It will be noted for later reference that this cease-and-desist order 1) originated at the Cistercians’ University of Dallas, therefore its presumption of authority can only be attributed to a tacit nihil obstat from His Grace the Archbishop of Dallas-Ft. Worth; 2) its otherwise gratuitous reference to damnation expresses Neo-conservatism’s conviction that disagreement with their matters of faith is an expression of evil, as in evil empire, axis of evil, evil-doers, etc.; and 3) this Cistercian faculty is not defending their Encyclical Tradition, but the atheist Hayek and the Godless individualism of Rand.)

Once again the Austrian case is epistemologically airtight, moving as it does through its vanishingly small circuit, back and forth between ‘ipse dixit’ premises an preordained conclusions. The arbitrary sourcing of macroeconomic behavior in Human Action, as opposed to the activity of a distributed meta-mind, has been discussed. And here the axiomatic conclusion in opposition to calculable utility forestalls all possibility of disproof: the computation of utility (hence the empirical examination thereof) is only possible on the basis of a solved Vienna Problem because utility can only be calculated by running some such solution 'in reverse'.

Having run SFEcon Model 0 in reverse to compute time series for our transcendental utility parameters, SFEcon creates an empirical case on behalf of calculable utility for the Austrian School to disparage. Disparagement, being a personal attitude, is not open to refutation: no practical measure of a prospective natural constant is going to return an r-bar-squared of unity; and any deviation from unity might strike the scrupulously exacting personality as sufficient to reject any empirical case.