A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Problem solved.

I don't see how you can fault Rout for not assuming a known and finite number of possibilities when the problem is about a universe without that constraint. Once you add subjective valuations, the math gets easy: Relative to my life enhanced by what's in my envelope, would doubling my envelope improve my life more than halving it would worsen my life? I think that's what in the $gazillion "math." We don't really care whether there's $2 gazillion in the other envelope; $1 gazillion will do nicely, end of story.

Suppose there's another player who gets the envelope you reject. What is that player's EV? You switching will either double or halve his payoff, too. Do you both have positive EVs?

I side with Rout on this one. For me, the resolution lies in the error of confusing apparently random events with actually random events. The paradox takes place in a universe where there are only D and 2D envelopes and there is only one value of D. Thus, there is no infinite number of iterations over which to play the game and average the results. If D is 50, it makes no difference how many times the player switches; he ALWAYS loses D. If D is 100, then he ALWAYS wins. But we do not know that there is a 50-50 chance of the universe having set D at 50 or 100. We don't know the probability of D being 50 or 100. We know only that D is fixed. Hence the "suspicion" that $1 gazillion is probably 2D. Where does that thought come from if not from a sense that D is not random?