Imagination has recently attracted considerable attention from epistemologists and is recognized as a source of belief and even knowledge. One remarkable feature of imagination is that it is often and typically agentive: agents decide to imagine. In cases in which imagination results in a belief, the agentiveness of imagination may be taken to give rise to indirect doxastic control and epistemic responsibility. This observation calls for a proper understanding of agentive imagination. In particular, it calls for the development of a (...) semantics of imagination ascriptions. In the present paper an earlier suggestion by Ilkka Niiniluoto for a logic of imagination is considered. This proposal does not capture the agentive nature of imagination, and an alternative semantics is suggested. The new semantics combines the modal logic of agency with the neighbourhood semantics from alethic modal logic. (shrink)

Philosophers of science often assume that logically equivalent theories are theoretically equivalent. I argue that two theses, anti-exceptionalism about logic (which says, roughly, that logic is not a priori, that it is revisable, and that it is not special or set apart from other human inquiry) and logical realism (which says, roughly, that differences in logic reflect genuine metaphysical differences in the world), make trouble for both this commitment and the closely related commitment to theories being closed under logical (...) consequence. I provide three arguments. The first two show that anti-exceptionalism about logic provides an epistemic challenge to both the closure and the equivalence claims; the third shows that logical realism provides a metaphysical challenge to both the closure and the equivalence claims. Along the way, I show that there are important methodological upshots for metaphysicians and philosophers of logic. In particular, there are lessons to be drawn about certain conceptions of naturalism as constraining the possibilities for metaphysics and the philosophy of logic. (shrink)

Łukasiewicz three-valued logic Ł3 is often understood as the set of all 3-valued valid formulas according to Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued matrices. Following Wojcicki, in addition, we shall consider two alternative interpretations of Ł3: “well-determined” Ł3a and “truth-preserving” Ł3b defined by two different consequence relations on the 3-valued matrices. The aim of this paper is to provide (by using Dunn semantics) dual equivalent two-valued under-determined and over-determined interpretations for Ł3, Ł3a and Ł3b. The logic Ł3 is axiomatized as an extension (...) of Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic following Brady’s strategy for axiomatizing many-valued logics by employing two-valued under-determined or over-determined interpretations. Finally, it is proved that “well determined” Łukasiewicz logics are paraconsistent. (shrink)

Łukasiewicz three-valued logic Ł3 is often understood as the set of all 3-valued valid formulas according to Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued matrices. Following Wojcicki, in addition, we shall consider two alternative interpretations of Ł3: “well-determined” Ł3a and “truth-preserving” Ł3b defined by two different consequence relations on the 3-valued matrices. The aim of this paper is to provide dual equivalent two-valued under-determined and over-determined interpretations for Ł3, Ł3a and Ł3b. The logic Ł3 is axiomatized as an extension of Routley and Meyer’s (...) basic positive logic following Brady’s strategy for axiomatizing many-valued logics by employing two-valued under-determined or over-determined interpretations. Finally, it is proved that “well determined” Łukasiewicz logics are paraconsistent. (shrink)

Closure is the idea that what is true about a theory of truth should be true in it. Commitment to closure under truth motivates non-classical logic; commitment to closure under validity leads to substructural logic. These moves can be thought of as responses to revenge problems. With a focus on truth in mathematics, I will consider whether a noncontractive approach faces a similar revenge problem with respect to closure under provability, and argue that (...) if a noncontractive theory is to be genuinely closed, then it must be free of all contraction, even in the metatheory. (shrink)

The general principle of epistemic closure stipulates that epistemic properties are transmissible through logical means. According to this principle, an epistemic operator, say ε, should satisfy any valid scheme of inference, such as: if ε(p entails q), then ε(p) entails ε(q). The principle of epistemic closure under known entailment (ECKE), a particular instance of epistemic closure, has received a good deal of attention since the last thirty years or so. ECKE states that: if one knows (...) that p entails q, and she knows that p, then she knows that q. It is widely accepted that ECKE constitutes an important piece of the skeptical argument, but the acceptance of an unrestricted version of ECKE is still a matter of debate. On the side of the defenders of ECKE, one finds Stine (1976), Brueckner (1985), Vogel (1990), and Feldman (1995). Others proposed a refutation or a limitation of the principle, like Dretske (1970), Nozick (1981), Hales (1995), Williams (1996), and Sosa (1999). As it turns out, the relevant alternatives view (RAV) elaborated by Dretske, which restricts the scope of ECKE, has been discussed extensively and acknowledged as one of the most important contributions. There is nonetheless a major unsolved difficulty pertaining to Dretske-RAV: the notion of relevant alternatives is defined in such a way that it is bounded by counterfactual possibilities. This ontological import leaves open the door to the skeptic. Some have tried to give more precision to this notion, like Stine (1976), who appealed to a Gricean approach to define relevant alternatives in conversational contexts. My proposal is in accordance with the gist of Dretske’s strategy, i.e. to restrict the validity of ECKE, and I claim that in order to escape the difficulties inherent to RAV one has to introduce a more robust notion, the notion of epistemic context. Epistemic contexts are a subclass of propositional contexts. In that perspective, the closure property is expressed in terms of a property of a relation between epistemic contexts. ECKE holds when and only when either the epistemic context of the premisses is the same as the epistemic context of the conclusion, or the epistemic context change between the premisses and the conclusion is permissible. Permissibility of epistemic context change is a function of consistency. By means of this epistemic context approach, I will show that: (1) epistemic contexts are defined by basic propositions (unchallenged justified beliefs), (2) ECKE holds only under very specific constraints, and (3) the skeptical argument involves a non-permissible change of epistemic context and, by the same token, cannot rely upon ECKE. (shrink)

We investigate the philosophical significance of the existence of different semantic systems with respect to which a given deductive system is sound and complete. Our case study will be Corcoran's deductive system D for Aristotelian syllogistic and some of the different semantic systems for syllogistic that have been proposed in the literature. We shall prove that they are not equivalent, in spite of D being sound and complete with respect to each of them. Beyond the specific case of syllogistic, the (...) goal is to offer a general discussion of the relations between informal notions—in this case, an informal notion of deductive validity—and logical apparatuses such as deductive systems and (model-theoretic or other) semantic systems that aim at offering technical, formal accounts of informal notions. Specifically, we will be interested in Kreisel's famous 'squeezing argument'; we shall ask ourselves what a plurality of semantic systems (understood as classes of mathematical structures) may entail for the cogency of specific applications of the squeezing argument. More generally, the analysis brings to the fore the need for criteria of adequacy for semantic systems based on mathematical structures. Without such criteria, the idea that the gap between informal and technical accounts of validity can be bridged is put under pressure. (shrink)

All standard epistemic logics legitimate something akin to the principle of closure, according to which knowledge is closed under competent deductive inference. And yet the principle of closure, particularly in its multiple premise guise, has a somewhat ambivalent status within epistemology. One might think that serious concerns about closure point us away from epistemic logic altogether—away from the very idea that the knowledge relation could be fruitfully treated as a kind of modal operator. This, however, need (...) not be so. The abandonment of closure may yet leave in place plenty of formal structure amenable to systematic logical treatment. In this paper we describe a family of weak epistemic logics in which closure fails, and describe two alternative semantic frameworks in which these logics can be modelled. One of these—which we term plurality semantics—is relatively unfamiliar. We explore under what conditions plurality frames validate certain much-discussed principles of epistemic logic. It turns out that plurality frames can be interpreted in a very natural way in light of one motivation for rejecting closure, adding to the significance of our technical work. The second framework that we employ—neighbourhood semantics—is much better known. But we show that it too can be interpreted in a way that comports with a certain motivation for rejecting closure. (shrink)

We present some equivalent conditions for a quasivariety \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal {K}}$$\end{document} of structures to be generated by a single structure. The first such condition, called the embedding property was found by A.I. Mal′tsev in [6]. It says that if \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\bf A}, {\bf B} \in \mathcal {K}}$$\end{document} are nontrivial, then there exists \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\bf C} \in \mathcal{K}}$$\end{document} (...) such that A and B are embeddable into C. One of our equivalent conditions states that the set of quasi-identities valid in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{K}}$$\end{document} is closed under a certain Gentzen type rule which is due to J. Łoś and R. Suszko [5]. (shrink)

It is well known that, in a topological space, the open sets can be characterized using ?lter convergence. In ZF , we cannot replace filters by ultrafilters. It is proven that the ultra?lter convergence determines the open sets for every topological space if and only if the Ultrafilter Theorem holds. More, we can also prove that the Ultra?lter Theorem is equivalent to the fact that uX = kX for every topological space X, where k is the usual Kuratowski closure (...) operator and u is the Ultra?lter Closure with uX := {x ∈ X: [U converges to x and A ∈ U ]}. However, it is possible to built a topological space X for which uX ≠ kX, but the open sets are characterized by the ultra?lter convergence. To do so, it is proved that if every set has a free ultra?lter, then the Axiom of Countable Choice holds for families of non-empty finite sets. It is also investigated under which set theoretic conditions the equality u = k is true in some subclasses of topological spaces, such as metric spaces, second countable T0-spaces or {ℝ}. (shrink)

Say that a property is topological if and only if it is invariant under homeomorphism. Homeomorphism would be a successful criterion for the equivalence of logical systems only if every logically significant property of every logical system were topological. Alas, homeomorphisms are sometimes insensitive to distinctions that logicians value: properties such as functional completeness are not topological. So logics are not just devices for exploring closure topologies. One still wonders, though, how much of logic is topological. This (...) essay examines some logically significant properties that are topological (or are topological in some important class). In the process, we learn something about the conditions under which the meaning of a connective can be "given by the connective's role in inference.". (shrink)

A first-order sentence is quasi-modal if its class of models is closed under the modal validity preserving constructions of disjoint unions, inner substructures and bounded epimorphic images. It is shown that all members of the proper class of canonical structures of a modal logic Λ have the same quasi-modal first-order theory Ψ Λ . The models of this theory determine a modal logic Λ e which is the largest sublogic of Λ to be determined by an elementary class. The (...) canonical structures of Λ e also have Ψ Λ as their quasi-modal theory. In addition there is a largest sublogic Λ c of Λ that is determined by its canonical structures, and again the canonical structures of Λ c have Ψ Λ are their quasi-modal theory. Thus Ψ Λ = Ψ Λ c = Ψ Λ e . Finally, we show that all finite structures validating Λ are models of Ψ Λ , and that if Λ is determined by its finite structures, then Ψ Λ is equal to the quasi-modal theory of these structures. (shrink)

A first-order sentence isquasi-modalif its class of models is closed under the modal validity preserving constructions of disjoint unions, inner substructures and bounded epimorphic images.It is shown that all members of the proper class of canonical structures of a modal logicΛhave the same quasi-modal first-order theoryΨΛ. The models of this theory determine a modal logicΛewhich is the largest sublogic ofΛto be determined by an elementary class. The canonical structures ofΛealso haveΨΛas their quasi-modal theory.In addition there is a largest sublogicΛeofΛthat (...) is determined by its canonical structures, and again the canonical structures ofΛehaveΨΛare their quasi-modal theory. Thus. Finally, we show that all finite structures validatingΛare models ofΨΛ, and that ifΛis determined by its finite structures, thenΨΛis equal to the quasi-modal theory of these structures. (shrink)

The idea that knowledge can be extended by inference from what is known seems highly plausible. Yet, as shown by familiar preface paradox and lottery-type cases, the possibility of aggregating uncertainty casts doubt on its tenability. We show that these considerations go much further than previously recognized and significantly restrict the kinds of closure ordinary theories of knowledge can endorse. Meeting the challenge of uncertainty aggregation requires either the restriction of knowledge-extending inferences to single premises, or eliminating epistemic uncertainty (...) in known premises. The first strategy, while effective, retains little of the original idea—conclusions even of modus ponens inferences from known premises are not always known. We then look at the second strategy, inspecting the most elaborate and promising attempt to secure the epistemic role of basic inferences, namely Timothy Williamson’s safety theory of knowledge. We argue that while it indeed has the merit of allowing basic inferences such as modus ponens to extend knowledge, Williamson’s theory faces formidable difficulties. These difficulties, moreover, arise from the very feature responsible for its virtue- the infallibilism of knowledge. (shrink)

I show that the Lottery Paradox is just a version of the Sorites, and argue that this should modify our way of looking at the Paradox itself. In particular, I focus on what I call “the Cut-off Point Problem” and contend that this problem, well known by Sorites scholars, ought to play a key role in the debate on Kyburg’s puzzle. Very briefly, I show that, in the Lottery Paradox, the premises “ticket n°1 will lose”, “ticket n°2 will lose”… “ticket (...) n°1000 will lose” are equivalent to soritical premises of the form “~(the winning ticket is in {…, (tn)}) ⊃ ~(the winning ticket is in {…, tn, (tn + 1)})” (where “⊃” is the material conditional, “~” is the negation symbol, “tn” and “tn + 1” are “ticket n°n” and “ticket n°n + 1” respectively, and “{}” identify the elements of the lottery tickets’ set. The brackets in “(tn)” and “(tn + 1)” are meant to point out that in the antecedent of the conditional we do not always have a “tn” (and, as a result, a “tn + 1” in the consequent): consider the conditional “~(the winning ticket is in {}) ⊃ ~(the winning ticket is in {t1})”). As a result, failing to believe, for some ticket, that it will lose comes down to introducing a cut-off point in a chain of soritical premises. In this paper I explore the consequences of the different ways of blocking the Lottery Paradox with respect to the Cut-off Point Problem. A heap variant of the Lottery Paradox is especially relevant for evaluating the different solutions. One important result is that the most popular way out of the puzzle, i.e., denying the Lockean Thesis, becomes less attractive. Moreover, I show that, along with the debate on whether rational belief is closed under classical logic, the debate on the validity of modus ponens should play an important role in discussions on the Lottery Paradox. -/- . (shrink)

We characterize the modal logics of elementary classes of Kripke frames as precisely those modal logics that are axiomatized by modal axioms synthesized in a certain effective way from "quasi-positive" sentences of hybrid logic. These are pure positive hybrid sentences with arbitrary existential and relativized universal quantification over nominals. The proof has three steps. The first step is to use the known result that the modal logic of any elementary class of Kripke frames is also the modal logic of the (...) closure of this class under disjoint unions, generated subframes, bounded morphic images, and ultraroots. This latter class can be defined by the first-order sentences of a special syntactic form (called pseudo-equations by Goldblatt) that are valid in the former class. The second step is to translate these pseudo-equations into equivalent quasi-positive hybrid sentences. In the third and main step, we show that any quasi-positive sentence S generates an infinite set of modal formulas called "approximants," which together axiomatize a canonical modal logic that is sound and complete for the class of frames validating S. The proof is analogous to standard proofs of Sahlqvist's theorem. It generalizes to sets of quasi-positive sentences. The main result now follows. (shrink)

We show that Intuitionistic Open Induction iop is not closed under the rule DNS(∃ - 1 ). This is established by constructing a Kripke model of iop + $\neg L_y(2y > x)$ , where $L_y(2y > x)$ is universally quantified on x. On the other hand, we prove that iop is equivalent with the intuitionistic theory axiomatized by PA - plus the scheme of weak ¬¬LNP for open formulas, where universal quantification on the parameters precedes double negation. We also (...) show that for any open formula φ(y) having only y free, $(PA^-)^i \vdash L_y\varphi(y)$ . We observe that the theories iop, i∀ 1 and iΠ 1 are closed under Friedman's translation by negated formulas and so under VR and IP. We include some remarks on the classical worlds in Kripke models of iop. (shrink)

Is the assessment of motor milestones valid and scaled equivalently for all infants? It is not only important to understand if the way we use gross and fine motor scores are appropriate for monitoring motor milestones but also to determine if these scores are confounded by specific infant characteristics. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the latent structure underlying motor milestone assessment in infancy and measurement invariance across sex, birth weight, and gestational age. For this study, (...) the birth cohort data from the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study was used, which includes the assessment of eight motor milestone tasks from the Denver Developmental Screening Test in 9-month-old infants, depicting early motor development of the first children of generation Z. Confirmatory factor analyses showed a better model fit for a two-factor structure compared to a one-factor structure, and multiple indicators multiple causes modeling revealed no differential item functioning related to sex, birth weight, and gestational age. The study provides support for the use of gross and fine motor scores when assessing motor milestones in infants—both boys and girls with different birth weights and of varying gestational ages. Further investigation into widely adopted assessment tools is recommended to support the use of valid composite scores in early childhood research and practice. (shrink)

We live in a world in which we are socially, politically, economically, and environmentally connected with other people. Online communication has facilitated people coming together from different parts of the world. In terms of social justice movements, people have come together to share ideas about how they perceive social inequality and how to address it, which is what academics call critical consciousness. While scholars have explored critical consciousness in the American context, whether it operates on a global scale is (...) class='Hi'>under-explored. To address this question, we administered the Critical Consciousness Scale (a validated survey) with students from the United States, Iran, and Ukraine. Our findings demonstrate that critical consciousness maintains its factor structure across the entire sample, meaning that students from these three countries share some notions of critical consciousness. However, when comparing national groups, we find that critical consciousness is defined differently by students in different countries. In a practical sense, these findings mean that some aspects of critical consciousness are shared, but there are important differences in how it is perceived and how its components relate to one another. By attempting to understand critical consciousness internationally, this study serves as a cautionary narrative for international solidarity movements organized around the goal of social justice. (shrink)

The COVID-19 outbreak spurred unplanned closures and transitions to online classes. Physical environments that once fostered social interaction and community were rendered inactive. We conducted interviews and administered surveys to examine undergraduate STEM students’ feelings of belonging and engagement while in physical isolation, and identified online teaching modes associated with these feelings. Surveys from a racially diverse group of 43 undergraduate students at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) revealed that interactive synchronous instruction was positively associated with feelings of interest and (...) belonging, particularly for students of color, while noninteractive instruction reduced social belonging, but was related to more cognitive engagement. Small group and one-on-one interviews with 23 of these students suggest that students derived feelings of connectedness from their instructors, peers, and prior experiences and relied on their sense of competency to motivate themselves in the course and feel a sense of belonging. Two embedded cases of students in physics classrooms are compared to highlight the range of student feelings of connectedness and competency during the lockdown. Findings reaffirm that social interaction tends to support belonging and engagement, particularly for under-represented (Black or African American and Hispanic) racial groups in STEM. STEM instructors who aim to support feelings of belonging and engagement in virtual learning environments should consider increasing opportunities for student–student and student–teacher interactions, as well as taking a flexible approach that validates and integrates student voice into instruction. Future research is needed to further explore the themes of relatedness and competency that emerged as aspects of course belonging. (shrink)

In Book 1 of the Principia, Newton presented two different descriptions of orbital motion under the action of a central force. In Prop. 1, he described this motion as a limit of the action of a sequence of periodic force impulses, while in Prop. 6, he described it by the deviation from inertial motion due to a continuous force. From the start, however, the equivalence of these two descriptions has been the subject of controversies. Perhaps the earliest one (...) was the famous discussion from December 1704 to 1706 between Leibniz and the French mathematician Pierre Varignon. But confusion about this subject has remained up to the present time. Recently, Pourciau has rekindled these controversies in an article in this journal, by arguing that “Newton never tested the validity of the equivalency of his two descriptions because he does not see that his assumption could be questioned. And yet the validity of this unseen and untested equivalence assumption is crucial to Newton’s most basic conclusions concerning one-body motion” (Pourciau in Arch Hist Exact Sci 58:283–321, 2004, 295). But several revisions of Props. 1 and 6 that Newton made after the publication in 1687 of the first edition of the Principia reveal that he did become concerned to provide mathematical proof for the equivalence of his seemingly different descriptions of orbital motion in these two propositions. In this article, we present the evidence that in the second and third edition of the Principia, Newton gave valid demonstrations of this equivalence that are encapsulated in a novel diagram discussed in Sect. 4. (shrink)

We give a syntactic characterization of (finitary) theories whose categories of models are closed under the formation of connected limits (respectively the formation of pullbacks and substructures) in the category of all structures. They are also those theories whose consistent extensions by new atomic facts admit in each component an initial structure (respectively an initial term structure), and also thoseT for whichM(T) is locally finitely multi-presentable in a canonical way. We also show that these two properties of theories are (...) nonuniform. (shrink)

We give syntactic characterizations of1. the theories whose categories of models are closed under the formation of pullbacks, and of2. the locally ω-polypresentable categories.A somewhat typical example is the category of algebraically closed fields. Case is proved by classical model-theoretic methods; it solves a problem raised by H. Volger . The solution of case is in the spirit of the ones for the locally ω-presentable and ω-multipresentable cases found by M. Coste and P.T. Johnstone respectively. The problem was raised (...) in the context of Domain Theory by F. Lamarche. (shrink)

In the first half of this paper, we study the way that sets of real numbers closed under Turing equivalence sit inside the real line from the perspective of algebra, measure and orders. Afterwards, we combine the results from our study of these sets as orders with a classical construction from Avraham to obtain a restriction about how non trivial automorphism of the Turing degrees (if they exist) interact with 1-generic degrees.

The aim of this paper is to study a particular family of non-deterministic semantics for modal logics that has eight truth-values. These eight-valued semantics can be traced back to Omori and Skurt (2016), where a particular member of this family was used to characterize the normal modal logic K. The truth-values in these semantics convey information about a proposition’s truth/falsity, whether the proposition is necessary/not necessary, and whether it is possible/not possible. Each of these triples is represented by a unique (...) value. In this paper we will study which modal logics can be obtained by changing the interpretation of the $$\Box $$ modality, assuming that the interpretation of other connectives stays constant. We will show what axioms are responsible for a particular interpretations of $$\Box $$. Furthermore, we will study subsets of these axioms. We show that some of the combinations of the axioms are equivalent to well-known modal axioms. We apply the level-valuation technique to all of the systems to regain the closure under the rule of necessitation. We also point out that some of the resulting logics are not sublogics of S5 and comment briefly on the corresponding frame conditions that are forced by these axioms. Ultimately, we sketch a proof of meta-completeness for all of these systems. (shrink)

I explore some issues in the logics and dialectics of practical modalities connected with the Consequence Argument (CA) considered as the best argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism. According to Lewis (1981) in one of the possible senses of (in)ability, the argument is not valid; however, understood in the other of its possible senses, the argument is not sound. This verdict is based on the assessment of the modal version of the argument, where the crucial notion (...) is power necessity (“no choice” operator), while Lewis analyses the version where the central notion is the locution “cannot render false.”Lewis accepts closure of the relevant (in)ability operator under entailment but not closure under implication. His strategy has a seemingly strange corollary: a free predetermined agent is able (in a strong, causal sense) to falsity the conjunction of history and law. I compare a Moorean position with respect to radical skepticism and knowledge closure with ability closure and propose to explain Lewis’s strategy in the framework of his Moorean stance. (shrink)

The topic of this article is the closure of a priori knowability under a priori knowable material implication: if a material conditional is a priori knowable and if the antecedent is a priori knowable, then the consequent is a priori knowable as well. This principle is arguably correct under certain conditions, but there is at least one counterexample when completely unrestricted. To deal with this, Anderson proposes to restrict the closure principle to necessary truths and Horsten (...) suggests to restrict it to formulas that belong to less expressive languages. In this article it is argued that Horsten’s restriction strategy fails, because one can deduce that knowable ignorance entails necessary ignorance from the closure principle and some modest background assumptions, even if the expressive resources do not go beyond those needed to formulate the closure principle itself. It is also argued that it is hard to find a justification for Anderson’s restricted closure principle, because one cannot deduce it even if one assumes very strong modal and epistemic background principles. In addition, there is an independently plausible alternative closure principle that avoids all the problems without the need for restriction. (shrink)

The paper critically discusses two prominent arguments against closure principles for knowledge. The first one is the “argument from aggregation”, claiming that closure under conjunction has the consequence that, if one individually knows i premises, one also knows their i-fold conjunction—yet, every one of the premises might exhibit interesting positive epistemic properties while the i-fold conjunction might fail to do so. The second one is the “argument from concatenation”, claiming that closure under entailment has the (...) consequence that, if one knows a premise, one also knows each of its remote consequences one arrives at—yet, again, the premise might exhibit interesting positive epistemic properties while some of its remote consequences might fail to do so. The paper firstly observes that the ways in which these two arguments try to establish that the relevant closure principle has the relevant problematic consequence are strikingly similar. They both crucially involve showing that, given the features of the case, the relevant closure principle acts in effect as a soritical principle, which is in turn assumed to lead validly to the relevant problematic consequence. There are however nontransitive logics of vagueness where soritical principles do not have any problematic consequence. Assuming that one of these logics is the correct logic of vagueness, the paper secondly observes that both arguments describe situations where knowledge is arguably vague in the relevant respects, so that a tolerant logic should be used in reasoning about it, with the effect that the relevant soritical principle no longer validly leads to the relevant problematic consequence. This shows an interesting respect in which the gap between validity and good inference that arguably arises in a transitive framework can be bridged in a tolerant one, thereby approximating better certain features of our epistemic lives as finite subjects. Moreover, even for those who do not subscribe to tolerant logics, the paper’s two observations jointly indicate that, for all the arguments from aggregation and concatenation show, the status of the relevant closure principles should be no worse than that assigned by one’s favoured theory of vagueness to soritical principles, which only rarely is plain falsity and can indeed get arbitrarily close to full truth. (shrink)

Based on the branching time theory proposed by Prior and Thomason, this thesis is devoted to characterizing the causal aspect of agency by considering a sentence "$\alpha$ sees to it that A" as asserting a causal relation between a choice made by the agent $\alpha$ and a fact described in the sentence A. The phrase "see to it that" is abbreviated as stit. This thesis provides conceptual analyses of stit and develops some modal logics of stit in accordance with these (...) analyses. Theories of stit discussed in this thesis include B. Chellas' theory, Von Kutschera and Horty's theory, and Belnap and Perloff's theory. ;Chapters I-II focus on a conceptual examination of stit theories. We start with branching time theory, and develop a notion of possibility based on reality. After a discussion of Chellas' theory of stit and the controversial issue about stit closure under consequence, we introduce a notion of factual consequences of actions to serve as a basic interpretation of stit sentences. In order to back up this notion, we present a theory of events, a theory of causation and a theory of alternatives for agents in branching time. Using these theories, we interpret the relation between actions and their factual consequences as a causal relation, i.e., factual consequences of actions are sentences describing facts that are caused by those actions. Finally we reach the same semantics for stit as those proposed by Von Kutschera and Horty, and Belnap and Perloff. In Chapters III-VI, we focus on the technical aspect of the stit theory proposed by Belnap and Perloff. We present an axiomatization of the basic logic ${\bf L}\sb0$ of stit with a single agent and prove its completeness, and present an axiomatization of the logic ${\bf L}\sb1$ of stit with a single agent and refref equivalence and prove its completeness and decidability. Finally we present a study of stit modalities which serves as a study of modes of actions/inactions as well as a preparation for further studies of logics between ${\bf L}\sb0$ and ${\bf L}\sb1.$. (shrink)

How is the validity of our consent, and others’ moral permission to act on our consent affected by coercion? Everyone agrees that in cases of two-party coercion—when X coerces Y to do something with or for X—the consent of the coerced is invalid, and the coercer is not permitted to act upon the consent they receive. But coercers and the recipients of consent are not always identical. Sometimes a victim, Y, agrees to do something to, with, or for Z because (...) they are being coerced by X. Recently, several philosophers have argued that consent under third-party coercion can be fully valid. We argue that this view has troubling implications. We develop a novel view of consent in third-party coercion cases, which we call the partial validity account. The core idea is that, under severe coercion, Y’s consent is at most partially valid—it reduces the strength of, but does not completely dissolve, Z’s consent-sensitive duties. We argue that the partial validity account gets the right results in important cases and explains the moral factors at play better than alternative accounts. (shrink)

We present a new logic-based approach to the reasoning about knowledge which is independent of possible worlds semantics. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\in_K}$$\end{document} is a non-Fregean logic whose models consist of propositional universes with subsets for true, false and known propositions. Knowledge is, in general, not closed under rules of inference; the only valid epistemic principles are the knowledge axiom Kiφ → φ and some minimal conditions concerning common knowledge in a group. Knowledge (...) is explicit and all forms of the logical omniscience problem are avoided. Various stronger epistemic properties such as positive and/or negative introspection, the K-axiom, closure under logical connectives, etc. can be restored by imposing additional semantic constraints. This yields corresponding sublogics for which we present sound and complete axiomatizations. As a useful tool for general model constructions we study abstract versions of some 3-valued logics in which we interpret truth as knowledge. We establish a connection between \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\in_K}$$\end{document} and the well-known syntactic approach to explicit knowledge proving a result concerning equi-expressiveness. Furthermore, we discuss some self-referential epistemic statements, such as the knower paradox, as relaxations of variants of the liar paradox and show how these epistemic “paradoxes” can be solved in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\in_K}$$\end{document}. Every specific \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\in_K}$$\end{document}-logic is defined as a certain extension of some underlying classical abstract logic. (shrink)

We construct a model for the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness in which the least supercompact cardinal κ has its strong compactness indestructible under adding arbitrarily many Cohen subsets. There are no restrictions on the large cardinal structure of our model.

We prove an existential analogue of the Goldblatt‐Thomason Theorem which characterizes modal definability of elementary classes of Kripke frames using closure under model theoretic constructions. The less known version of the Goldblatt‐Thomason Theorem gives general conditions, without the assumption of first‐order definability, but uses non‐standard constructions and algebraic semantics. We present a non‐algebraic proof of this result and we prove an analogous characterization for an alternative notion of modal definability, in which a class is defined by formulas which (...) are satisfiable under any valuation (the so‐called existential validity). Continuing previous work in which model theoretic characterization for this type of definability of elementary classes was proved, we give an analogous general result without the assumption of the first‐order definability. Furthermore, we outline relationships between sets of existentially valid formulas corresponding to several well‐known modal logics. (shrink)

Closure space has been proven to be a useful tool to restructure lattices and various order structures. This paper aims to provide an approach to characterizing domains by means of closure spaces. The notion of an interpolative generalized closure space is presented and shown to generate exactly domains, and the notion of an approximable mapping between interpolative generalized closure spaces is identified to represent Scott continuous functions between domains. These produce a category equivalent to that of (...) domains with Scott continuous functions. Meanwhile, some important subclasses of domains are discussed, such as algebraic domains, _L_-domains, bounded-complete domains, and continuous lattices. Conditions are presented which, when fulfilled by an interpolative generalized closure space, make the generated domain fulfill some restrictive conditions. (shrink)

While Gödel’s first theorem remains valid under substitution of various provability predicates, Gödel’s second theorem does not. This is one reason to label G1 as “extensional” but to call G2 “intensional.” Although this asymmetry between G1 and G2 is known for long, no satisfying account of G2’s intensionality has been put forward. After briefly reviewing the discussion so far, the paper presents a new analysis based on two observations. First, the underestimated role of provable closure under (...) modus. Provable closure under modus ponens—usually listed as the second derivability condition—or similar requirements, do not get much attention since their proof isn’t perceived as much of challenge. Closer inspection shows, however, that the requirement of provable closure under modus ponens interacts differently with different formalized proof predicates and has thus a direct bearing on the discussion of G2’s intensionality. Second, in order to establish the co-extensionality of various proof predicates and hence the extensionality of G1, the role informal consistency assumption play goes largely unnoticed and unanalyzed. Closer inspection shows, however, that if such informal consistency assumptions are being made precise, the former distinction between G1 and G2 becomes blurry and G2’s intensionality can be made go away. Both observation then support the thesis that the traditional extensional/intensional distinction is not as robust as the received view believed it to be. (shrink)

We present a new logic -based approach to the reasoning about knowledge which is independent of possible worlds semantics.? k is a non- Fregean logic whose models consist of propositional universes with subsets for true, false and known propositions. Knowledge is, in general, not closed under rules of inference; the only valid epistemic principles are the knowledge axiom K i??? and some minimal conditions concerning common knowledge in a group. Knowledge is explicit and all forms of the logical (...) omniscience problem are avoided. Various stronger epistemic properties such as positive and/or negative introspection, the K-axiom, closure under logical connectives, etc, can be restored by imposing additional semantic constraints. This yields corresponding sublogics for which we present sound and complete axiomatizations. As a useful tool for general model constructions we study abstract versions of some 3-valued logics in which we interpret truth as knowledge. We establish a connection between? k and the well-known syntactic approach to explicit knowledge proving a result concerning equi-expressiveness. Furthermore, we discuss some self - referential epistemic statements, such as the knower paradox, as relaxations of variants of the liar paradox and show how these epistemic "paradoxes" can be solved in? k. Every specific? k - logic is defined as a certain extension of some underlying classical abstract logic. (shrink)

Decompositional equivalence is the principle that there is no preferred decomposition of the universe into subsystems. It is shown here, by using a simple thought experiment, that quantum theory follows from decompositional equivalence together with Landauer’s principle. This demonstration raises within physics a question previously left to psychology: how do human—or any—observers identify or agree about what constitutes a “system of interest”?

Single-premise epistemic closure is the principle that: if one is in an evidential position to know that P where P entails Q, then one is in an evidential position to know that Q. In this paper, I defend the viability of opposition to closure. A key task for such an opponent is to precisely formulate a restricted closure principle that remains true to the motivations for abandoning unrestricted closure but does not endorse particularly egregious instances of (...) closure violation. I focus on two brands of epistemic theory that naturally incorporate closure restrictions. The first type holds that the truth value of a knowledge ascription is relative to a relevant question. The second holds that the truth value of a knowledge ascription is relative to a relevant topic. For each approach, I offer a formalization of a leading theory from the literature and use this formalization to evaluate the theory’s adequacy in terms of a precise set of desiderata. I conclude that neither theory succeeds in meeting these desiderata, casting doubt on the viability of the underlying approaches. Finally, I offer a novel variant of the topic-sensitive approach that fares better. (shrink)

Working under large cardinal assumptions such as supercompactness, we study the Borel reducibility between equivalence relations modulo restrictions of the nonstationary ideal on some fixed cardinal κ. We show the consistency of Eλ-clubλ++,λ++, the relation of equivalence modulo the nonstationary ideal restricted to Sλλ++ in the space λ++, being continuously reducible to Eλ+-club2,λ++, the relation of equivalence modulo the nonstationary ideal restricted to Sλ+λ++ in the space 2λ++. Then we show that for κ ineffable Ereg2,κ, the (...) relation of equivalence modulo the nonstationary ideal restricted to regular cardinals in the space 2κ is Σ11-complete. We finish by showing that, for Π21-indescribable κ, the isomorphism relation between dense linear orders of cardinality κ is Σ11-complete. (shrink)

For nonmonotonic logics, Cumulativity is an important logical rule. We show here that Cumulativity fans out into an infinity of different conditions, if the domain is not closed under finite unions.

Tracking theories of knowledge are widely known to have the consequence that knowledge is not closed. Recent arguments by Vogel and Hawthorne claim both that there are no legitimate examples of knowledge without closure and that the costs of theories that deny closure are too great. This paper considers the tracking theories of Dretske and Nozick and the arguments by Vogel and Hawthorne. We reject the arguments of Vogel and Hawthorne and evaluate the costs of closure denial (...) for tracking theories of knowledge. (shrink)

I discuss the relationship between different versions of the equivalence principle in general relativity, among them Einstein's equivalence principle, the weak equivalence principle, and the strong equivalence principle. I show that Einstein's version of the equivalence principle is intimately linked to his idea that in GR gravity and inertia are unified to a single field, quite like the electric and magnetic field had been unified in special relativistic electrodynamics. At the same time, what is now (...) often called the strong equivalence principle, related to the local validity of special relativity, can also be found in Einstein's writings, albeit by a different name and clearly separated from what he calls the equivalence principle. I discuss both the development of Einstein's thoughts on the different versions of the equivalence principle, their relationship to the relativity principle, as well as later reflections and variants proposed. (shrink)