Skip to main content
Log in

A geo-logical solution to the lottery paradox, with applications to conditional logic

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We defend a set of acceptance rules that avoids the lottery paradox, that is closed under classical entailment, and that accepts uncertain propositions without ad hoc restrictions. We show that the rules we recommend provide a semantics that validates exactly Adams’ conditional logic and are exactly the rules that preserve a natural, logical structure over probabilistic credal states that we call probalogic. To motivate probalogic, we first expand classical logic to geo-logic, which fills the entire unit cube, and then we project the upper surfaces of the geo-logical cube onto the plane of probabilistic credal states by means of standard, linear perspective, which may be interpreted as an extension of the classical principle of indifference. Finally, we apply the geometrical/logical methods developed in the paper to prove a series of trivialization theorems against question-invariance as a constraint on acceptance rules and against rational monotonicity as an axiom of conditional logic in situations of uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Jeffrey Sanford Russell, John Hawthorne & Lara Buchak

References

  • Adams E. W. (1975) The logic of conditionals. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchourròn C. E., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arló-Costa H., Parikh R. (2005) Conditional probability and defeasible inference. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34: 97–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise K. (1969) Infinitary logic and admissible sets. Journal of Symbolic Logic 34: 226–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douven I. (2002) A new solution to the paradoxes of rational acceptability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 391–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajek P. (1998) Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harper W. (1975) Rational belief change, popper functions and counterfactuals. Synthese 30(1–2): 221–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C. (1970). Dracula meets Wolfman: Acceptance vs. partial belief. In M. Swain (Ed.), Induction, acceptance, and rational belief. D. Reidel.

  • Karp C. (1964) Languages with expressions of infinite length. North Holland, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly K. (2008) Ockham’s razor, truth, and information. In: van Benthem J., Adriaans P. (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of information (pp. 321–360). Elsevier, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly K. (2011) Ockham’s razor, truth, and probability. In: Bandyopadhyay P., Forster M. (eds) Handbook on the philosophy of statistics.. Elsevier, Dordrecht, pp 983–1024

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1990) Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44: 167–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1992) What does a conditional base entails?. Artificial Intelligence 55: 1–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitgeb, H. (2010). Reducing belief simpliciter to degrees of belief. Presentation of his unpublished results at the opening celebration of the Center for Formal Epistemology at Carnegie Mellon University in the Summer of 2010 (unpublished results).

  • Levi, I. (1967). Gambling with truth: An essay on induction and the aims of science. New York: Harper & Row (2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1973).

  • Levi I. (1969) Information and inference. Synthese 19: 369–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi I. (1996) For the sake of the argument: Ramsey test conditionals, inductive inference and non-monotonic reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. (2011). A new theory of acceptance that solves the lottery paradox and provides a simplified probabilistic semantics for Adams’ logic of conditionals. Master’s thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Makinson, D., & Gärdenfors, P. (1991). Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. In A. Fuhrmann & M. Morreau (Eds.), The logic of theory change (pp. 183–205). Springer-Verlag Lecture notes in computer science 465. Berlin: Springer.

  • Novak V., Perfilieva I., Mockor J. (2000) Mathematical principles of fuzzy logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1989). Probabilistic semantics for nonmonotonic reasoning: A survey. In Proceedings of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR ’89) (pp. 505–516). (Reprinted in G. Shafer & J. Pearl (Eds.), Readings in uncertain reasoning (pp. 699–710). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann).

  • Pollock J. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. P. (1929). General propositions and causality. In H. A. Mellor (Ed.), Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.

  • Ryan S. (1996) The epistemic virtues of consistency. Synthese 109: 121–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen B. (1995) Fine-grained opinion, probability and the logic of full belief. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 349–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh L. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin T. Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, H., Kelly, K.T. A geo-logical solution to the lottery paradox, with applications to conditional logic. Synthese 186, 531–575 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9998-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9998-1

Keywords

Navigation