Ordinal Conditional Functions. A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In W. L. Harper & B. Skyrms (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. II. Kluwer (1988)
It is natural and important to have a formal representation of plain belief, according to which propositions are held true, or held false, or neither. (In the paper this is called a deterministic representation of epistemic states). And it is of great philosophical importance to have a dynamic account of plain belief. AGM belief revision theory seems to provide such an account, but it founders at the problem of iterated belief revision, since it can generally account only for one step of revision. The paper discusses and rejects two solutions within the confines of AGM theory. It then introduces ranking functions (as I prefer to call them now; in the paper they are still called ordinal conditional functions) as the proper (and, I find, still the best) solution of the problem, proves that conditional independence w.r.t. ranking functions satisfies the so-called graphoid axioms, and proposes general rules of belief change (in close analogy to Jeffrey's generalized probabilistic conditionalization) that encompass revision and contraction as conceived in AGM theory. Indeed, the parallel to probability theory is amazing. Probability theory can profit from ranking theory as well since it is also plagued by the problem of iterated belief revision even if probability measures are conceived as Popper measures (see No. 11). Finally, the theory is compared with predecessors which are numerous and impressive, but somehow failed to explain the all-important conditional ranks in the appropriate way.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hans van Ditmarsch, Brian Hill & Ondrej Majer (2009). Logic of Change, Change of Logic. Synthese 171 (2):227-234.
Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2011). Keep Changing Your Beliefs, Aiming for the Truth. Erkenntnis 75 (2):255-270.
Dov M. Gabbay & Karl Schlechta (2009). Independence — Revision and Defaults. Studia Logica 92 (3):381 - 394.
Fenrong Liu (2009). Diversity of Agents and Their Interaction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18 (1):23-53.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229 - 275.
Similar books and articles
Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2008). Probabilistic Dynamic Belief Revision. Synthese 165 (2):179 - 202.
Emil Weydert (2012). Conditional Ranking Revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):237-271.
Adnan Darwiche & Judea Pearl (1997). On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision. Artificial Intelligence 89:1-29.
Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi & Nicola Olivetti (2002). Iterated Belief Revision and Conditional Logic. Studia Logica 70 (1):23-47.
Abhaya C. Nayak (1994). Iterated Belief Change Based on Epistemic Entrenchment. Erkenntnis 41 (3):353-390.
Wolfgang Spohn (1990). A General Non-Probabilistic Theory of Inductive Reasoning. In R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, J. Lemmer & L. N. Kanal (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4. Elsevier.
Craig Boutilier (1996). Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (3):263 - 305.
Wolfgang Spohn (1994). On the Properties of Conditional Independence. In Paul Humphreys (ed.), Patrick Suppes, Scientific Philosopher Vol. 1: Probability and Probabilistic Causality. Kluwer.
Wolfgang Spohn, Ranking Functions, AGM Style. Internet Festschrift for Peter Gärdenfors.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-07-26
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?