Non-Archimedean probability functions allow us to combine regularity with perfect additivity. We discuss the philosophical motivation for a particular choice of axioms for a non-Archimedean probability theory and answer some philosophical objections that have been raised against infinitesimal probabilities in general.

Non-Archimedean probability functions allow us to combine regularity with perfect additivity. We discuss the philosophical motivation for a particular choice of axioms for a non-Archimedean probability theory and answer some philosophical objections that have been raised against infinitesimal probabilities in general. _1_ Introduction _2_ The Limits of Classical Probability Theory _2.1_ Classical probability functions _2.2_ Limitations _2.3_ Infinitesimals to the rescue? _3_ NAP Theory _3.1_ First four axioms of NAP _3.2_ Continuity and conditional probability _3.3_ The final axiom (...) of NAP _3.4_ Infinite sums _3.5_ Definition of NAP functions via infinite sums _3.6_ Relation to numerosity theory _4_ Objections and Replies _4.1_ Cantor and the Archimedean property _4.2_ Ticket missing from an infinite lottery _4.3_ Williamson’s infinite sequence of coin tosses _4.4_ Point sets on a circle _4.5_ Easwaran and Pruss _5_ Dividends _5.1_ Measure and utility _5.2_ Regularity and uniformity _5.3_ Credence and chance _5.4_ Conditional probability _6_ General Considerations _6.1_ Non-uniqueness _6.2_ Invariance Appendix. (shrink)

A number of philosophers have attempted to solve the problem of null-probability possible events in Bayesian epistemology by proposing that there are infinitesimal probabilities. Hájek and Easwaran have argued that because there is no way to specify a particular hyperreal extension of the real numbers, solutions to the regularity problem involving infinitesimals, or at least hyperreal infinitesimals, involve an unsatisfactory ineffability or arbitrariness. The arguments depend on the alleged impossibility of picking out a particular hyperreal extension of the (...) real numbers and/or of a particular value within such an extension due to the use of the Axiom of Choice. However, it is false that the Axiom of Choice precludes a specification of a hyperreal extension—such an extension can indeed be specified. Moreover, for all we know, it is possible to explicitly specify particular infinitesimals within such an extension. Nonetheless, I prove that because any regular probability measure that has infinitesimal values can be replaced by one that has all the same intuitive features but other infinitesimal values, the heart of the arbitrariness objection remains. (shrink)

We show that infinitesimal probabilities are much too small for modeling the individual outcome of a countably infinite fair lottery.

The rejection of an infinitesimal solution to the zero-fit problem by A. Elga ([2004]) does not seem to appreciate the opportunities provided by the use of internal finitely-additive probability measures. Indeed, internal laws of probability can be used to find a satisfactory infinitesimal answer to many zero-fit problems, not only to the one suggested by Elga, but also to the Markov chain (that is, discrete and memory-less) models of reality. Moreover, the generalization of likelihoods that Elga has in (...) mind is not as hopeless as it appears to be in his article. In fact, for many practically important examples, through the use of likelihoods one can succeed in circumventing the zero-fit problem. 1 The Zero-fit Problem on Infinite State Spaces 2 Elga's Critique of the Infinitesimal Approach to the Zero-fit Problem 3 Two Examples for Infinitesimal Solutions to the Zero-fit Problem 4 Mathematical Modelling in Nonstandard Universes? 5 Are Nonstandard Models Unnatural? 6 Likelihoods and Densities A Internal Probability Measures and the Loeb Measure Construction B The (Countable) Coin Tossing Sequence Revisited C Solution to the Zero-fit Problem for a Finite-state Model without Memory D An Additional Note on ‘Integrating over Densities’ E Well-defined Continuous Versions of Density Functions. (shrink)

The 'best-system' analysis of lawhood [Lewis 1994] faces the 'zero-fit problem': that many systems of laws say that the chance of history going actually as it goes--the degree to which the theory 'fits' the actual course of history--is zero. Neither an appeal to infinitesimal probabilities nor a patch using standard measure theory avoids the difficulty. But there is a way to avoid it: replace the notion of 'fit' with the notion of a world being typical with respect to (...) a theory. (shrink)

It is natural to think that questions in the metaphysics of chance are independent of the mathematical representation of chance in probability theory. After all, chance is a feature of events that comes in degrees and the mathematical representation of chance concerns these degrees but leaves the nature of chance open. The mathematical representation of chance could thus, un-controversially, be taken to be what it is commonly taken to be: a probability measure satisfying Kolmogorov’s axioms. The metaphysical questions about chance (...) seem to be left open by all this. I argue that this is a mistake. The employment of real numbers as measures of chance in standard probability theory brings with it commitments in the metaphysics of (objective) chance that are not only substantial but also mistaken. To measure chance properly we need to employ extensions of the real numbers that contain infinitesimals: positive numbers that are infinitely small. But simply using infinitesimals alone is not enough, as a number of arguments show. Instead we need to put three ideas together: infinitesimals, the non-locality of chance and flexibility in measurement. Only those three together give us a coherent picture of chance and its mathematical representation. (shrink)

ABSTRACTA probability model is underdetermined when there is no rational reason to assign a particular infinitesimal value as the probability of single events. Pruss claims that hyperreal probabilities are underdetermined. The claim is based upon external hyperreal-valued measures. We show that internal hyperfinite measures are not underdetermined. The importance of internality stems from the fact that Robinson’s transfer principle only applies to internal entities. We also evaluate the claim that transferless ordered fields may have advantages over hyperreals in (...) probabilistic modeling. We show that probabilities developed over such fields are less expressive than hyperreal probabilities. (shrink)

Following the pioneer work of Bruno De Finetti [12], conditional probability spaces (allowing for conditioning with events of measure zero) have been studied since (at least) the 1950's. Perhaps the most salient axiomatizations are Karl Popper's in [31], and Alfred Renyi's in [33]. Nonstandard probability spaces [34] are a well know alternative to this approach. Vann McGee proposed in [30] a result relating both approaches by showing that the standard values of infinitesimal probability functions are representable as Popper functions, (...) and that every Popper function is representable in terms of the standard real values of some infinitesimal measure. Our main goal in this article is to study the constraints on (qualitative and probabilistic) change imposed by an extended version of McGee's result. We focus on an extension capable of allowing for iterated changes of view. Such extension, we argue, seems to be needed in almost all considered applications. Since most of the available axiomatizations stipulate (definitionally) important constraints on iterated change, we propose a non-questionbegging framework, Iterative Probability Systems (IPS) and we show that every Popper function can be regarded as a Bayesian IPS. A generalized version of McGee's result is then proved and several of its consequences considered. In particular we note that our proof requires the imposition of Cumulativity, i.e. the principle that a proposition that is accepted at any stage of an iterative process of acceptance will continue to be accepted at any later stage. The plausibility and range of applicability of Cumulativity is then studied. In particular we appeal to a method for defining belief from conditional probability (first proposed in [42] and then slightly modified in [6] and [3]) in order to characterize the notion of qualitative change induced by Cumulative models of probability kinematics. The resulting cumulative notion is then compared with existing axiomatizations of belief change and probabilistic supposition. We also consider applications in the probabilistic accounts of conditionals [1] and [30]. (shrink)

A probability distribution is regular if no possible event is assigned probability zero. While some hold that probabilities should always be regular, three counter-arguments have been posed based on examples where, if regularity holds, then perfectly similar events must have different probabilities. Howson (2017) and Benci et al. (2016) have raised technical objections to these symmetry arguments, but we see here that their objections fail. Howson says that Williamson’s (2007) “isomorphic” events are not in fact isomorphic, but Howson (...) is speaking of set-theoretic representations of events in a probability model. While those sets are not isomorphic, Williamson’s physical events are, in the relevant sense. Benci et al. claim that all three arguments rest on a conflation of different models, but they do not. They are founded on the premise that similar events should have the same probability in the same model, or in one case, on the assumption that a single rotation-invariant distribution is possible. Having failed to refute the symmetry arguments on such technical grounds, one could deny their implicit premises, which is a heavy cost, or adopt varying degrees of instrumentalism or pluralism about regularity, but that would not serve the project of accurately modelling chances. (shrink)

One of the problems that Bayesian regularity, the thesis that all contingent propositions should be given probabilities strictly between zero and one, faces is the possibility of random processes that randomly and uniformly choose a number between zero and one. According to classical probability theory, the probability that such a process picks a particular number in the range is zero, but of course any number in the range can indeed be picked. There is a solution to this particular problem (...) on the books: a measure that assigns the same infinitesimal probability to each number between zero and one. I will show that such a measure, while mathematically interesting, is pathological for use in confirmation theory, for the same reason that a measure that assigns an infinitesimal probability to each possible outcome in a countably infinite lottery is pathological. The pathology is that one can force someone to assign a probability within an infinitesimal of one to an unlikely event. (shrink)

It is possible that a fair coin tossed infinitely many times will always land heads. So the probability of such a sequence of outcomes should, intuitively, be positive, albeit miniscule: 0 probability ought to be reserved for impossible events. And, furthermore, since the tosses are independent and the probability of heads (and tails) on a single toss is half, all sequences are equiprobable. But Williamson has adduced an argument that purports to show that our intuitions notwithstanding, the probability of an (...) infinite sequence is 0. In this paper, I rebut his argument.No Abstract. (shrink)

The logical treatment of the nature of religious belief (here I will concentrate on belief in Christianity) has been distorted by the acceptance of a false dilemma. On the one hand, many (e.g., Braithwaite, Hare) have placed the significance of religious belief entirely outside the realm of intellectual cognition. According to this view, religious statements do not express factual propositions: they are not made true or false by the ways things are. Religious belief consists in a certain attitude toward the (...) world, life, or other human beings, or in what sorts of things one values. On the other hand, others (such as Swinburne, 1981, Chapers 1 and 4) have taken religious belief to include (at least) being certain of the truth of particular factual religious propositions. The strength of a person's religious belief is identified with his degree of confidence in the truth of those propositions, measured by the "subjective probability" which those propositions have for that person. I propose a third alternative, according to which, (1) contrary to the first view, religious belief does involve a relation to factual religious propositions, such as that God exists, that Jesus was God and man, etc., -- propositions which are made true or false by the way things actually are -- but, (2) contrary to the second view, the strength of religious belief is measured, not by the degree of one's confidence1 in the truth of these propositions, but rather by the way in which the value or desirability to oneself of the various ways the world could be is affected by their including or not including the truth of these religious propositions. Thus, religious belief does consist in what one values or prizes, not in what.. (shrink)

Leibniz is well known for his formulation of the infinitesimal calculus. Nevertheless, the nature and logic of his discovery are seldom questioned: does it belong more to mathematics or metaphysics, and how is it connected to his physics? This book, composed of fourteen essays, investigates the nature and foundation of the calculus, its relationship to the physics of force and principle of continuity, and its overall method and metaphysics. The Leibnizian calculus is presented in its origin and context together (...) with its main contributors: Archimedes, Cavalieri, Wallis, Hobbes, Pascal, Huygens, Bernoulli, and Nieuwentijt. Many of us know and probably have used the Leibnizian formula: to .. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Infinitesimal Differences: Controversies between Leibniz and his ContemporariesFrançoise Monnoyeur-BroitmanUrsula Goldenbaum and Douglas Jesseph, editors. Infinitesimal Differences: Controversies between Leibniz and his Contemporaries. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Pp. vi + 327. Cloth, $109.00.Leibniz is well known for his formulation of the infinitesimal calculus. Nevertheless, the nature and logic of his discovery are seldom questioned: does it belong more to mathematics or metaphysics, and how (...) is it connected to his physics? This book, composed of fourteen essays, investigates the nature and foundation of the calculus, its relationship to the physics of force and principle of continuity, and its overall method and metaphysics. The Leibnizian calculus is presented in its origin and context together with its main contributors: Archimedes, Cavalieri, Wallis, Hobbes, Pascal, Huygens, Bernoulli, and Nieuwentijt.Many of us know and probably have used the Leibnizian formula: to calculate the area under a curve; this book considers the origin, nature, method, and metaphysics of this formula. The most fascinating question discussed in it is the fiction introduced to define the infinitesimal calculation: in his mature period, Leibniz himself referred to his calculus as “a well-founded fiction.” We learn that he gradually gave up the idea of an actual infinite in favor of describing infinitely small quantities. As a result, the quantities became fictive and finite or indefinite instead of real and infinite, and the process of calculation shifted towards mathematics rather than metaphysics.In the first essay, Richard Arthur compares the calculus of Leibniz and Newton and demonstrates how it was based for both on the development of continuously varying quantity. He also shows how the understanding of this quantity derived from the Archimedean axiom that excludes the existence of actual infinite quantity. Ursula Goldenbaum next demonstrates how Hobbes, with his conatus considered as point and instant, had a direct impact on the Leibnizian conception of continuity; to confirm her interpretation, she includes at the end of her article the “Marginalia or Leibniz comments” on Hobbes. Samuel Levey establishes a connection between the notion of the infinitesimal as a “well-founded fiction” and the law of continuity, arguing that the law of continuity, understood as an extension of Archimedes’ principle, gives a finite foundation to the infinitesimal calculation. O. Bradley Bassler discusses the idea of the differential in terms of infinitely small quantities and the use of proportions between infinitely small and finite quantities in order to measure [End Page 527] the infinitely small; here, differentials are also presented as fictions. Fritz Nagel discusses the methodological sophistication of the calculus and its opponents. His main questions concern the different grades of infinity, quantities regarded as zero, and the infinitesimal as a fiction that can be calculated. Douglas Jesseph considers the reality of the infinitesimal and the “well-founded fiction,” showing how Leibniz methodically constructs infinitesimal quantities without reality by returning to Hobbes’ notion of conatus. Hobbes is, for Jesseph, the initiator of these infinitely small quantities without existence.A second group of essays examines the connection between algebra and geometry in the calculus. Philip Beeley demonstrates how John Wallis, on the path of Cavalieri’s method of the indivisibles, found a way to transform geometric problems into sums of arithmetic sequences. Siegmund Probst expresses the different phases in the discovery of the Leibnizian method. He mentions that Leibniz coined the term ‘infinitesimal’ in 1673, and points out that he did not need the method of indivisibles to find a curve from its given arc, but only a series expansion using differences of higher order. Emily Grosholz looks at how, thanks to his algebraic and geometrical notations of curves, Leibniz could formulate the equation of his infinitesimal calculus. According to Grosholz, Leibniz exploits the ambiguity of notations in order to express the geometrical and dynamical aspect of the calculus. Herbert Breger underlines the novelty and abstract nature of Leibniz’s new method of calculation, showing how the theory of infinitesimals became an algebraic calculus independent of geometry.A final group of articles studies the relationship between the calculus and Leibniz’s physics. François Duchesneau shows how the differential and integral calculus provided a model for the integrative laws of Leibniz’s... (shrink)

This dissertation is a contribution to formal and computational philosophy. -/- In the first part, we show that by exploiting the parallels between large, yet finite lotteries on the one hand and countably infinite lotteries on the other, we gain insights in the foundations of probability theory as well as in epistemology. Case 1: Infinite lotteries. We discuss how the concept of a fair finite lottery can best be extended to denumerably infinite lotteries. The solution boils down to the introduction (...) of infinitesimal probability values, which can be achieved using non-standard analysis. Our solution can be generalized to uncountable sample spaces, giving rise to a Non-Archimedean Probability (NAP) theory. Case 2: Large but finite lotteries. We propose application of the language of relative analysis (a type of non-standard analysis) to formulate a new model for rational belief, called Stratified Belief. This contextualist model seems well-suited to deal with a concept of beliefs based on probabilities ‘sufficiently close to unity’. -/- The second part presents a case study in social epistemology. We model a group of agents who update their opinions by averaging the opinions of other agents. Our main goal is to calculate the probability for an agent to end up in an inconsistent belief state due to updating. To that end, an analytical expression is given and evaluated numerically, both exactly and using statistical sampling. The probability of ending up in an inconsistent belief state turns out to be always smaller than 2%. (shrink)

We propose an alternative approach to probability theory closely related to the framework of numerosity theory: non-Archimedean probability (NAP). In our approach, unlike in classical probability theory, all subsets of an infinite sample space are measurable and only the empty set gets assigned probability zero (in other words: the probability functions are regular). We use a non-Archimedean field as the range of the probability function. As a result, the property of countable additivity in Kolmogorov’s axiomatization of probability is replaced by (...) a different type of infinite additivity. (shrink)

A new formal model of belief dynamics is proposed, in which the epistemic agent has both probabilistic beliefs and full beliefs. The agent has full belief in a proposition if and only if she considers the probability that it is false to be so close to zero that she chooses to disregard that probability. She treats such a proposition as having the probability 1, but, importantly, she is still willing and able to revise that probability assignment if she receives information (...) that gives her sufficient reasons to do so. Such a proposition is undoubted, but not undoubtable. In the formal model it is assigned a probability 1 − δ, where δ is an infinitesimal number. The proposed model employs probabilistic belief states that contain several underlying probability functions representing alternative probabilistic states of the world. Furthermore, a distinction is made between update and revision, in the same way as in the literature on belief change. The formal properties of the model are investigated, including properties relevant for learning from experience. The set of propositions whose probabilities are infinitesimally close to 1 forms a belief set. Operations that change the probabilistic belief state give rise to changes in this belief set, which have much in common with traditional operations of belief change. (shrink)

This article investigates the properties of multistate top revision, a dichotomous model of belief revision that is based on an underlying model of probability revision. A proposition is included in the belief set if and only if its probability is either 1 or infinitesimally close to 1. Infinitesimal probabilities are used to keep track of propositions that are currently considered to have negligible probability, so that they are available if future information makes them more plausible. Multistate top revision (...) satisfies a slightly modified version of the set of basic and supplementary AGM postulates, except the inclusion and success postulates. This result shows that hyperreal probabilities can provide us with efficient tools for overcoming the well known difficulties in combining dichotomous and probabilistic models of belief change. (shrink)

In this contribution, we focus on probabilistic problems with a denumerably or non-denumerably infinite number of possible outcomes. Kolmogorov (1933) provided an axiomatic basis for probability theory, presented as a part of measure theory, which is a branch of standard analysis or calculus. Since standard analysis does not allow for non-Archimedean quantities (i.e. infinitesimals), we may call Kolmogorov's approach "Archimedean probability theory". We show that allowing non-Archimedean probability values may have considerable epistemological advantages in the infinite case. The current paper (...) focuses on the motivation for our new axiomatization. (shrink)

We give a direct and elementary proof of the fact that every real-valued probability measure can be approximated—up to an infinitesimal—by a hyperreal-valued one which is regular and defined on the whole powerset of the sample space.

We relate Popper functions to regular and perfectly additive such non-Archimedean probability functions by means of a representation theorem: every such non-Archimedean probability function is infinitesimally close to some Popper function, and vice versa. We also show that regular and perfectly additive non-Archimedean probability functions can be given a lexicographic representation. Thus Popper functions, a specific kind of non-Archimedean probability functions, and lexicographic probability functions triangulate to the same place: they are in a good sense interchangeable.

Numerical probabilities are eliminated in favor of qualitative notions, with an eye to isolating what it is about probabilities that is essential to judgements of acceptability. A basic choice point is whether the conjunction of two propositions, each acceptable, must be deemed acceptable. Concepts of acceptability closed under conjunction are analyzed within Keisler's weak logic for generalized quantifiers — or more specifically, filter quantifiers. In a different direction, the notion of a filter is generalized so as to allow (...) sets with probability non-infinitesimally below 1 to be acceptable. (shrink)

Whenever a litigant needs to prove that a certain result was caused in a specific way, what could be more compelling than citing the infinitesimal probability of that result emanating from an alternative natural cause? Contrary to this intuitive position, in the present article, I argue that the contention that a result was due to a certain cause should remain unaffected by statistical evidence of the extremely low probability of an alternative cause. The only scenario in which the low (...) probability of a natural cause would be relevant to the case at hand is if it were contrasted with another piece of statistical evidence: the frequency of the criminal activity among people who are similar to the accused. However, by connecting the use of probabilistic generalisations in legal fact-finding to the issue of free will, I hold that, in Criminal Law, contrasting frequencies in this manner is objectionable—as a matter of principle—regardless of how reliable the statistical analysis is. Consequently, if the low probability of a natural cause is probative only if contrasted with another piece of statistical evidence that is objectionable, then neither piece of evidence should be admitted in criminal trials. (shrink)

In a fair finite lottery with n tickets, the probability assigned to each ticket winning is 1/n and no other answer. That is, 1/n is unique. Now, consider a fair lottery over the natural numbers. What probability is assigned to each ticket winning in this lottery? Well, this probability value must be smaller than 1/n for all natural numbers n. If probabilities are real-valued, then there is only one answer: 0, as 0 is the only real and non-negative value (...) that is smaller than 1/n for all natural numbers n. However, this answer seems counter-intuitive, as it violates Regularity: for all possible events A that are assigned a probability, A is assigned a positive probability. It is possible for ticket i to win in the second lottery. So, the set {i} should be assigned a positive probability and not 0. Consequently, in order to satisfy Regularity, probabilities must be allowed to take on `non-real' values, e.g. a positive infinitesimal x that is smaller than 1/n for all natural numbers n. So, what regular probability is assigned to {i} in the second lottery? This probability value must be positive but smaller than 1/n for all natural numbers n. Given the definition of x, x is a correct answer. But x isn't unique, because every other positive infinitesimal is a correct answer as well and there are uncountably many positive infinitesimals. After all, every positive infinitesimal is strictly between 0 and 1/n for all natural numbers n. Nothing about a fair lottery over the natural numbers uniquely determines x as the correct answer and nothing about the lottery rules out other positive infinitesimals as a correct answer as well. What probability to assign to {i} is underdetermined. -/- In this thesis, I explore this difference between fair finite lotteries and fair infinite lotteries. The constraints governing the former uniquely determine the probabilities assigned to events in those lotteries, but this isn't true for the latter lotteries, when Regularity is a constraint on probabilities. Now, although there are uncountably many correct probability values that can be assigned to {i} in the second lottery, there are some applications of probability theory, for which at least one correct probability value must be chosen in order to accomplish that application, e.g. calculation of expected utilities. In this thesis, I spell out sufficient conditions for when a choice like that is problematic. These conditions apply to precise probabilities, imprecise probabilities, and qualitative probabilities. So, I will consider Benci et al. (2018)'s and Pruss (2021)'s suggestion of allowing probabilities to be imprecise, as well as resorting to qualitative probabilities, to overcome the choice problem. I will argue that both don't solve the problem. Furthermore, there's a hitherto unnoticed difficulty in deriving imprecise probabilities by supervaluating over precise `non-real' probability values. To avoid this difficulty, precise probability values should be real-valued. Thus, Regularity cannot be a constraint on probabilities. But as it turns out, dropping Regularity as a constraint and requiring precise probabilities to be real-valued solve the choice problem. (shrink)

Nonmonotonic reasoning is often claimed to mimic human common sense reasoning. Only a few studies, though, investigated this claim empirically. In the present paper four psychological experiments are reported, that investigate three rules of system p, namely the and, the left logical equivalence, and the or rule. The actual inferences of the subjects are compared with the coherent normative upper and lower probability bounds derived from a non-infinitesimal probability semantics of system p. We found a relatively good agreement of (...) human reasoning and principles of nonmonotonic reasoning according to the coherence interpretation of system p. Contrary to the results reported in the “heuristics and biases” tradition, the subjects committed relatively few upper bound violations (conjunction fallacies). More lower than upper bound violations were observed. When the premises were presented in terms of intervals higher mean lower bounds were observed as when the premises were presented in terms of point percentages. (shrink)

In standard Bayesian probability revision, the adoption of full beliefs (propositions with probability 1) is irreversible. Once an agent has full belief in a proposition, no subsequent revision can remove that belief. This is an unrealistic feature, and it also makes probability revision incompatible with belief change theory, which focuses on how the set of full beliefs is modified through both additions and retractions. This problem in probability theory can be solved in a model that (i) lets the codomain of (...) the probability function be a hyperreal-valued rather than the real-valued closed interval [0, 1], and (ii) identifies the full beliefs as the propositions whose probability is either 1 or infinitesimally smaller than 1. In this model, changes in the probability function will result in changes in the set of full beliefs (belief set), which constitutes a submodel that can be conceived as the “tip of the iceberg” within the larger model that also contains beliefs on lower levels of probability. The patterns of change in the set of full beliefs in this modified Bayesian model coincides with the corresponding pattern in a slightly modified version of AGM revision, which is commonly conceived as the gold standard of (dichotomous) belief change. The modification only concerns the marginal case of revision by an inconsistent input sentence. These results show that probability revision and dichotomous belief change can be unified in one and the same framework, or – if we so wish – that belief change theory can be subsumed under a modified version of probability revision that allows for iterated change and for the removal of full beliefs. (shrink)

Close connections between probability theory and the theory of belief change emerge if the codomain of probability functions is extended from the real-valued interval [0, 1] to a hyperreal interval with the same limits. Full beliefs are identified as propositions with a probability at most infinitesimally smaller than 1. Full beliefs can then be given up, and changes in the set of full beliefs follow a pattern very close to that of AGM revision. In this contribution, iterated revision is investigated. (...) The iterated changes in the set of full beliefs generated by repeated revisions of a hyperreal probability function can, semantically, be modelled with the same basic structure as the sphere models of belief change theory. The changes on the set of full beliefs induced by probability revision satisfy the Darwiche–Pearl postulates for iterated belief change. (shrink)

In standard probability theory, probability zero is not the same as impossibility. But many have suggested that only impossible events should have probability zero. This can be arranged if we allow infinitesimal probabilities, but infinitesimals do not solve all of the problems. We will see that regular probabilities are not invariant over rigid transformations, even for simple, bounded, countable, constructive, and disjoint sets. Hence, regular chances cannot be determined by space-time invariant physical laws, and regular credences cannot (...) satisfy seemingly reasonable symmetry principles. Moreover, the examples here are immune to the objections against Williamson’s infinite coin flips. (shrink)

Forty years ago, Bayesian philosophers were just catching a new wave of technical innovation, ushering in an era of scoring rules, imprecise credences, and infinitesimal probabilities. Meanwhile, down the hall, Gettier’s 1963 paper [28] was shaping a literature with little obvious interest in the formal programs of Reichenbach, Hempel, and Carnap, or their successors like Jeffrey, Levi, Skyrms, van Fraassen, and Lewis. And how Bayesians might accommodate the discourses of full belief and knowledge was but a glimmer in (...) the eye of Isaac Levi. Forty years later, scoring rules, imprecise credences, and infinitesimal probabilities are all the rage. And the formal and “informal” traditions are increasingly coming together as Bayesian arguments spill over into debates about the foundations of empirical knowledge, skepticism, and more. Relatedly, Bayesian interest in full belief and knowledge has never been greater. Much more besides has happened in the last forty years of Bayesian philosophy, .. (shrink)

We study probabilistic logic under the viewpoint of the coherence principle of de Finetti. In detail, we explore how probabilistic reasoning under coherence is related to model- theoretic probabilistic reasoning and to default reasoning in System . In particular, we show that the notions of g-coherence and of g-coherent entailment can be expressed by combining notions in model-theoretic probabilistic logic with concepts from default reasoning. Moreover, we show that probabilistic reasoning under coherence is a generalization of default reasoning in System (...) . That is, we provide a new probabilistic semantics for System , which neither uses infinitesimal probabilities nor atomic bound (or big-stepped) probabilities. These results also provide new algorithms for probabilistic reasoning under coherence and for default reasoning in System , and they give new insight into default reasoning with conditional objects. (shrink)

The present paper shows how one might model Everettian quantum mechanics using hyperfinitely many worlds. A hyperfinite model allows one to consider idealized measurements of observables with continuous-valued spectra where different outcomes are associated with possibly infinitesimal probabilities. One can also prove hyperfinite formulations of Everett’s limiting relative-frequency and randomness properties, theorems he considered central to his formulation of quantum mechanics. Finally, this model provides an intuitive framework in which to consider no-collapse formulations of quantum mechanics more generally.

This paper defends a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle against Jordan Howard Sobel’s recent novel interpretation of Hume’s criticisms. In his book, ’Logic and Theism’, Sobel offers an intriguing and original way to apply Hume’s criticisms against the possibility of having sufficient evidence to confirm a miracle. The key idea behind Sobel’s approach is to employ infinitesimal probabilities to neutralize the cumulative effects of positive evidence for any miracle. This paper aims to undermine Sobel’s use of (...) class='Hi'>infinitesimal probabilities to block a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle. (shrink)

The present paper shows how one might model Everettian quantum mechanics using hyperfinitely many worlds. A hyperfinite model allows one to consider idealized measurements of observables with continuous-valued spectra where different outcomes are associated with possibly infinitesimal probabilities. One can also prove hyperfinite formulations of Everett’s limiting relative-frequency and randomness properties, theorems he considered central to his formulation of quantum mechanics. Finally, this model provides an intuitive framework in which to consider no-collapse formulations of quantum mechanics more generally.

A BAYESIAN ARTICULATION OF HUME’S VIEWS IS OFFERED BASED ON A FORM OF THE BAYES-LAPLACE THEOREM THAT IS SUPERFICIALLY LIKE A FORMULA OF CONDORCET’S. INFINITESIMAL PROBABILITIES ARE EMPLOYED FOR MIRACLES AGAINST WHICH THERE ARE ’PROOFS’ THAT ARE NOT OPPOSED BY ’PROOFS’. OBJECTIONS MADE BY RICHARD PRICE ARE DEALT WITH, AND RECENT EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED BY AMOS TVERSKY AND DANIEL KAHNEMAN ARE CONSIDERED IN WHICH PERSONS TEND TO DISCOUNT PRIOR IMPROBABILITIES WHEN ASSESSING REPORTS OF WITNESSES.

Nonmonotonic reasoning is often claimed to mimic human common sense reasoning. Only a few studies, though, have investigated this claim empirically. We report four experiments which investigate three rules of SYSTEMP, namely the AND, the LEFT LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE, and the OR rule. The actual inferences of the subjects are compared with the coherent normative upper and lower probability bounds derived from a non-infinitesimal probability semantics of SYSTEM P. We found a relatively good agreement of human reasoning and principles of (...) nonmonotonic reasoning. Contrary to the results reported in the ‘heuristics and biases’ tradition, the subjects committed relatively few upper bound violations (conjunction fallacies). (shrink)

A New Chance for Infinitesimals? This article discusses the connection between the Zenonian paradox of magnitude and probability on infinite sample spaces. Two important premises in the Zenonian argument are: the Archimedean axiom, which excludes infinitesimal magnitudes, and perfect additivity. Standard probability theory uses real numbers that satisfy the Archimedean axiom, but it rejects perfect additivity. The additivity requirement for real-valued probabilities is limited to countably infinite collections of mutually incompatible events. A consequence of this is that there (...) exists no standard probability function that describes a fair lottery on the natural numbers. If we reject the Archimedean axiom, allowing infinitesimal probability values, we can retain perfect additivity and describe a fair, countable infinite lottery. The article gives a historical overview to understand how the first option has become the current standard, whereas the latter remains ‘non-standard’. (shrink)

The recent literature offers several models of the notion of matter of fact supposition1 revealed in the acceptance of the so-called indicative conditionals. Some of those models are qualitative [Collins 90], [Levi 96], [Stalnaker 84]. Other probabilistic models appeal either to infinitesimal probability or two place probability functions. Recent work has made possible to understand which is the exact qualitative counterpart of the latter probabilistic models. In this article we show that the qualitative notion of change that thus arises (...) is hypothetical revision, a notion previously axiomatized in [Arló-Costa 97] and [Arló-Costa & Thomason 96]. This notion is incompatible with AGM as well as with other standard methods of theory change. The way in which matter-of-fact supposition is modeled by hypothetical revision is illustrated via examples. The model is compared with other qualitative accounts of the notion of supposition encoded in two-place probability functions, with models of subjunctive supposition, as well as with some of the well know models of learning. Applications in knowledge representation and in the theory of games and decisions are summarized. (shrink)

According to Huemer, existence is evidence of immortality, provided past time is infinite. The argument is based on, inter alia, an alleged contradiction between the fact of one’s existence now and its improbability. I suggest that Huemer’s argument is flawed in equating the infinitesimally small with its limit value, and in assuming a philosophically significant difference between the a priori probability of the occurrence of a unique incarnation and that of anyone among an infinite number.

A probability distribution is regular if it does not assign probability zero to any possible event. Williamson argued that we should not require probabilities to be regular, for if we do, certain “isomorphic” physical events must have different probabilities, which is implausible. His remarks suggest an assumption that chances are determined by intrinsic, qualitative circumstances. Weintraub responds that Williamson’s coin flip events differ in their inclusion relations to each other, or the inclusion relations between their times, and this (...) can account for their differences in probability. Haverkamp and Schulz rebut Weintraub, but their rebuttal fails because the events in their example are even less symmetric than Williamson’s. However, Weintraub’s argument also fails, for it ignores the distinction between intrinsic, qualitative differences and relations of time and bare identity. Weintraub could rescue her argument by claiming that the events differ in duration, under a non-standard and problematic conception of duration. However, we can modify Williamson’s example with Special Relativity so that there is no absolute inclusion relation between the times, and neither event has longer duration except relative to certain reference frames. Hence, Weintraub’s responses do not apply unless chance is observer-relative, which is also problematic. Finally, another symmetry argument defeats even the appeal to frame-dependent durations, for there the events have the same finite duration and are entirely disjoint, as are their respective times and places. (shrink)

In ‘Fair Infinite Lotteries’ (FIL), Wenmackers and Horsten use non-standard analysis to construct a family of nicely-behaved hyperrational-valued probability measures on sets of natural numbers. Each probability measure in FIL is determined by a free ultrafilter on the natural numbers: distinct free ultrafilters determine distinct probability measures. The authors reply to a worry about a consequent ‘arbitrariness’ by remarking, “A different choice of free ultrafilter produces a different ... probability function with the same standard part but infinitesimal differences.” They (...) illustrate this remark with the example of the sets of odd and even numbers. Depending on the ultrafilter, either each of these sets has probability 1/2, or the set of odd numbers has a probability infinitesimally higher than 1/2 and the set of even numbers infinitesimally lower. The point of the current paper is simply that the amount of indeterminacy is much greater than acknowledged in FIL: there are sets of natural numbers whose probability is far more indeterminate than that of the set of odd or the set of even numbers. (shrink)

This article discusses how the concept of a fair finite lottery can best be extended to denumerably infinite lotteries. Techniques and ideas from non-standard analysis are brought to bear on the problem.