Preference doesn’t compare what you have to what you might be able to get, it compares with each other the alternatives you might be able to enact. Expected utility theory is about mixed outcomes, but in case of an algorithm making the decision the alternatives become more clearly mutually exclusive, it becomes logically impossible for different alternatives to coexist in any possible world.
A closed term, that is an algorithm without arguments, can’t change what it outputs from the thing it does output to some different thing. So you really can’t move from one of the possibilities to the other, if it’s not part of some process of planning that is happening prior to actually enacting any of the possible decisions.
Preference doesn’t compare what you have to what you might be able to get, it compares with each other the alternatives you might be able to enact.
This is a plausible assumption (@Steven Byrnes made a similar comment), yet the money pump argument apparently does compare what you have to what you might get in the future.
Preference doesn’t compare what you have to what you might be able to get, it compares with each other the alternatives you might be able to enact. Expected utility theory is about mixed outcomes, but in case of an algorithm making the decision the alternatives become more clearly mutually exclusive, it becomes logically impossible for different alternatives to coexist in any possible world.
A closed term, that is an algorithm without arguments, can’t change what it outputs from the thing it does output to some different thing. So you really can’t move from one of the possibilities to the other, if it’s not part of some process of planning that is happening prior to actually enacting any of the possible decisions.
This is a plausible assumption (@Steven Byrnes made a similar comment), yet the money pump argument apparently does compare what you have to what you might get in the future.