You are of course correct about the concrete scenario of being Dutch Booked in a hypothetical gamble (and I am not a gambler for reasons similar to this: we all know the house always wins!). However, if we’re going to discard the Dutch Book criterion, then we need to replace it with some other desiderata for preventing self-contradictory preferences that cause no-win scenarios.
Even if your own mind comes preprogrammed with decision-making algorithms that can go into no-win scenarios under some conditions, you should recognize those as a conscious self-patching human being, and consciously employ other algorithms that won’t hurt themselves.
I mean, let me put it this way, probabilities aside, if you make decisions that form a cyclic preference ordering rather than even forming a partial ordering, isn’t there something rather severely bad about that?
You are of course correct about the concrete scenario of being Dutch Booked in a hypothetical gamble (and I am not a gambler for reasons similar to this: we all know the house always wins!). However, if we’re going to discard the Dutch Book criterion, then we need to replace it with some other desiderata for preventing self-contradictory preferences that cause no-win scenarios.
Even if your own mind comes preprogrammed with decision-making algorithms that can go into no-win scenarios under some conditions, you should recognize those as a conscious self-patching human being, and consciously employ other algorithms that won’t hurt themselves.
I mean, let me put it this way, probabilities aside, if you make decisions that form a cyclic preference ordering rather than even forming a partial ordering, isn’t there something rather severely bad about that?
Why?
Do you want to program an agent to put you in a no-win scenario? Do you want to put yourself in a no-win scenario?