I disagree, I don’t think it’s a simple binary thing. I don’t think Dutch book arguments in general never apply to recursive things, but it’s more just that the recursion needs to be modelled in some way, and since your OP didn’t do that, I ended up finding the argument confusing.
But what does that look like? How should it make a difference? (This isn’t a rhetorical question; I would be interested in a positive position. My lack of interest is, significantly, due to a lack of positive positions in this direction.)
I don’t think your argument goes through for the imp, since it never needs to decide its action, and therefore the second part of selling the contract back never comes up?
Ah, true, but the imp will necessarily just make EDT-type predictions anyway. So the imp argument reaches a similar conclusion.
But I’m not claiming the imp argument is very strong in any case, it’s just an intuition pump.
But what does that look like? How should it make a difference? (This isn’t a rhetorical question; I would be interested in a positive position. My lack of interest is, significantly, due to a lack of positive positions in this direction.)
Ah, true, but the imp will necessarily just make EDT-type predictions anyway. So the imp argument reaches a similar conclusion.
But I’m not claiming the imp argument is very strong in any case, it’s just an intuition pump.