Regularity and Hyperreal Credences
| Abstract | Many philosophers have become worried about the use of standard real numbers for the probability function that represents an agent’s credences. They point out that real numbers can’t capture the distinction between certain extremely unlikely events, and actually impossible ones — both get credence 0, which violates a principle known as “regularity”. Following Lewis [1980] and Skyrms [1980], they recommend that we should instead use a much richer set of numbers, called the “hyperreals”. I think that this popular view is the result of two mistakes. The first, which I call the “numerical fallacy”, is to assume that all there is to a mathematical representation is the numbers. In this case, I claim that the standard mathematical representation already captures the needed distinctions, if we look beyond the numbers. The second mistake is like that made by the cartographers in Borges’ story. A representation is no good if it is too large to use. As I show at the end of this paper, the hyperreals have exactly this problem — they are too rich a structure to fit in the world, even if they could help us restore regularity. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesNick Haverkamp & Moritz Schulz (2012). A Note on Comparative Probability. Erkenntnis 76 (3):395-402.
Kenneth L. Manders (1986). What Numbers Are Real? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:253 - 269.
Jeremy Gwiazda (2012). On Infinite Number and Distance. Constructivist Foundations 7 (2):126-130.
Robert Sugden (2011). Explanations in Search of Observations. Biology and Philosophy 26 (5):717-736.
Eric Steinhart (2002). Why Numbers Are Sets. Synthese 133 (3):343 - 361.
Alan Hájek (2008). Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793 - 819.
Georges Dicker (2000). Regularity, Conditionality, and Asymmetry in Causation. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 7:129-138.
Véronique Izard, Pierre Pica, Elizabeth S. Spelke & Stanislas Dehaene (2008). Exact Equality and Successor Function: Two Key Concepts on the Path Towards Understanding Exact Numbers. Philosophical Psychology 21 (4):491 – 505.
Helen Beebee (2003). Seeing Causing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (3):257-280.
Alexandre Borovik, Renling Jin & Mikhail G. Katz (2012). An Integer Construction of Infinitesimals: Toward a Theory of Eudoxus Hyperreals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 53 (4):557-570.
Yaroslav Sergeyev (2009). Numerical Computations and Mathematical Modelling with Infinite and Infinitesimal Numbers. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing 29:177-195.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-12-13Total downloads37 ( #31,946 of 549,119 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,263 of 549,119 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
