Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Several philosophical problems are based on an analogy between a real situation and a probabilistic model. Such problems are based on urn analogies. The present dissertation aims to describe and implement a methodology oriented towards the resolution of philosophical problems based on an urn analogy. This methodology is based on the use of the n-universes. To this end, I describe first the n-universes in a detailed way. I also discuss the difficulties of the theory of n-universes related to the demultiplication of the criteria and to the relation one/many between the objects and a given criterion. On the one hand, I present an application of the framework of n-universes to the Doomsday argument and to the problems recently appeared in the literature in keeping with the Doomsday argument. My concern is also with showing how the application of the framework of n-universes to several problems and thought experiments related to the Doomsday argument helps clarifying the problem data and making disappear the associated ambiguity. I present then an analysis of the following problems related to the Doomsday argument: the two urn case, God's Coin Toss, the Sleeping Beauty Problem, the Presumptuous Philosopher, Lazy Adam, and the Shooting-Room Paradox. I present lastly a solution to the Doomsday argument, based on a third route, by contrast to two types of solutions classically described. On the other hand, I present an application of the framework of n-universes to Goodman's paradox. I replace first Goodman's statement in the framework of n-universes. I propose then a solution to the paradox, based on a distinction between two different modelizations of Goodman's statement in two structurally different n-universes|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Paul Franceschi (2006). Situations Probabilistes Pour N-Univers Goodmaniens. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:123-141.
Paul Franceschi (2001). A Solution to Goodman's Paradox. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Paul Franceschi (1999). The Doomsday Argument and Hempel's Problem. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Paul Franceschi (2009). A Third Route to the Doomsday Argument. Journal of Philosophical Research 34:263-278.
I. A. Kieseppä (2001). Statistical Model Selection Criteria and the Philosophical Problem of Underdetermination. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):761 - 794.
Paul Draper, Kai Draper & Joel Pust (2007). Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
Bradley Monton (2003). The Doomsday Argument Without Knowledge of Birth Rank. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):79–82.
Alasdair M. Richmond (2008). Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and Simulated Worlds. Ratio 21 (2):201–217.
Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's "New Riddle". Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6):613 - 643.
Ruth Weintraub (2009). The Doomsday Argument Revisited (a Stop in the Shooting-Room Included). Polish Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):109-122.
Brian Kierland & Bradley Monton (2006). How to Predict Future Duration From Present Age. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (January):16-38.
Added to index2010-09-10
Total downloads3 ( #214,062 of 740,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?