Online research in philosophy

Logical argument forms are investigated by second order probability density functions. When the premises are expressed by beta distributions, the conclusions usually are mixtures of beta distributions. If the shape parameters of the distributions are assumed to be additive (natural sampling), then the lower and upper bounds of the mixing distributions (Polya-Eggenberger distributions) are parallel to the corresponding lower and upper probabilities in conditional probability logic.

Logical argument forms are investigated by second order probability density functions. When the premises are expressed by beta distributions, the conclusions usually are mixtures of beta distributions. If the shape parameters of the distributions are assumed to be additive (natural sampling), then the lower and upper bounds of the mixing distributions (P´olya-Eggenberger distributions) are parallel to the corresponding lower and upper probabilities in conditional probability logic.

Logicians have strongly preferred first-order natural deductive systems over Peirce's Beta Graphs even though both are equivalent to each other. One of the main reasons for this preference, I claim, is that inference rules for Beta Graphs are hard to understand, and, therefore, hard to apply for deductions. This paper reformulates the Beta rules to show more fine-grained symmetries built around visual features of the Beta system, which makes the rules more natural and easier to use and understand. Noting that the rules of a natural deductive system are natural in a different sense, this case study shows that the naturalness and the intuitiveness of rules depends on the type of representation system to which they belong. In a diagrammatic system, when visual features are discovered and fully used, we have a more efficacious deductive system. I will also show that this project not only helps us to apply these rules more easily but to understand the validity of the system at a more intuitive level.

Let $\Omega:= \aleph_1$ . For any $\alpha \Omega:\xi = \omega^\xi\}$ let EΩ (α) be the finite set of ε-numbers below Ω which are needed for the unique representation of α in Cantor-normal form using 0, Ω, +, and ω. Let $\alpha^\ast:= \max (E_\Omega(\alpha) \cup \{0\})$ . A function f: εΩ + 1 → Ω is called essentially increasing, if for any $\alpha < \varepsilon_{\Omega + 1}; f(\alpha) \geq \alpha^\ast: f$ is called essentially monotonic, if for any $\alpha,\beta < \varepsilon_{\Omega + 1}$; $\alpha \leq \beta \wedge \alpha^\ast \leq \beta^\ast \Rightarrow f(\alpha) \leq f(\beta).$ Let Clf(0) be the least set of ordinals which contains 0 as an element and which satisfies the following two conditions: (a) $\alpha,\beta \epsilon \mathrm{Cl}_f(0) \Rightarrow \omega^\alpha + \beta \epsilon \mathrm{Cl}_f(0)$ , (b) $E_\Omega\alpha \subseteq \mathrm{Cl}_f(0) \Rightarrow f(\alpha) \epsilon \mathrm{Cl}_f(0)$ . Let ϑεΩ + 1 be the Howard-Bachmann ordinal, which is, for example, defined in [3]. The following theorem is shown: If f:εΩ + 1 → Ω is essentially monotonic and essentially increasing, then the order type of Clf(0) is less than or equal to ϑεΩ + 1.

Incompatibilism about freedom and causal determinism is commonly supported by appeal to versions of the well known Consequence argument. Critics of the Consequence argument have presented counterexamples to the Consequence argument's central inference principle. The thesis of this article is that proponents of the Consequence argument can easily bypass even the best of these counterexamples.

There exists a family $\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha of sets of countable ordinals such that: (1) max B α = α, (2) if α ∈ B β then $B_\alpha \subseteq B_\beta$ , (3) if λ ≤ α and λ is a limit ordinal then B α ∩ λ is not in the ideal generated by the $B_\beta, \beta , and by the bounded subsets of λ, (4) there is a partition {A n } ∞ n = 0 of ω 1 such that for every α and every n, B α ∩ A n is finite.

Incompatibilism about freedom and causal determinism is commonly supported by appeal to versions of the well known Consequence argument. Critics of the Consequence argument have presented counterexamples to the Consequence argument's central inference principle. The thesis of this article is that proponents of the Consequence argument can easily bypass even the best of these counterexamples.

We use a $\kappa^{+}-Mahlo$ cardinal to give a forcing construction of a model in which there is no sequence $\langle A_{\beta} : \beta \textless \omega_{2} \rangle$ of sets of cardinality $\omega_{1}$ such that $\{\lambda \textless \omega_{2} : \existsc \subset \lambda & (\bigcupc = \lambda otp(c) = \omega_{1} & \forall \beta \textless \lambda (c \cap \beta \in A_{\beta}))\}$ is stationary.

The well-known "Consequence Argument" for the incompatibility of freedom and determinism relies on a certain rule of inference; "Principle Beta". Thomas Crisp and Ted Warfield have recently argued that all hitherto suggested counterexamples to Beta can be easily circumvented by proponents of the Consequence Argument. I present a new counterexample which, I argue, is free from the flaws Crisp and Warfield detect in earlier examples.

Modal arguments for incompatibility of freedom and determinism are typically based on the “transfer principle” for inability to act otherwise (Beta). The principle of agglomerativity (closure under conjunction introduction) is derivable from Beta. The most convincing counterexample to Beta is based on the denial of Agglomeration. The defender of the modal argument has two ways to block counterexamples to Beta: (i) use a notion of inability to act otherwise which is immune to the counterexample to agglomerativity; (ii) replace Beta with a logically stronger principle Beta 2. I argue that the second strategy fails because the strengthened principle and Agglomeration together entail Beta. So this strategy makes sense only if Beta 2 is applied without Agglomeration. But if Beta 2 is used without Agglomeration, then the incompatibilist will undercut the rationale for the premise of his argument. I illustrate this point with the analysis of Warfield (1996) and his use of Beta 2 in the so called direct argument for incompatibilism.