Decision-Making Under Indeterminacy

Decisions are made under uncertainty when there are distinct outcomes of a given action, and one is uncertain to which the act will lead. Decisions are made under indeterminacy when there are distinct outcomes of a given action, and it is indeterminate to which the act will lead. This paper develops a theory of (synchronic and diachronic) decision-making under indeterminacy that portrays the rational response to such situations as inconstant. Rational agents have to capriciously and randomly choose how to resolve the indeterminacy relevant to a given choice-situation, but such capricious choices once made constrain how they will choose in the future. The account is illustrated by the case of self-interested action in situations where it is indeterminate whether you yourself will survive to benefit or suffer the consequences. The conclusion emphasizes some distinctive anti-hedging predictions of the account

Probability and nonclassical logic

Classical tautologies have probability. Classical contradictions have probability. These familiar features reflect a connection between standard probability theory and classical logic. In contexts in which classical logic is questioned—to deal with the paradoxes of self-reference, or vague propositions, for the purposes of scientific theory or metaphysical anti-realism—we must equally question standard probability theory. Section 1 covers the intended interpretation of ‘nonclassical logic’ and ‘probability’. Section 2 reviews the connection between classical logic and classical probability. Section 3 briefly reviews salient aspects of nonclassical logic, laying out a couple of simple examples to fix ideas. Section 4 explores modifications of probability theory. The variations laid down will be motivated initially by formal analogies to the classical setting. In section 5, however, we look at two foundational justifications for the presentations of ‘nonclassical probabilities’ that are arrived at. Sections 6-7 describe extensions of the nonclassical framework: to conditionalization and decision theory in particular. Section 8 will consider some alternative approaches, and section 9 evaluates progress

Indeterminate Oughts

Sometimes it is indeterminate what an agent morally ought do. This generates a Decision Ought Challenge — to give moral guidance to agents in such a scenario. This paper is a field guide to the options for a theory of the decision - ought for cases of indeterminacy. Three categories of view are evaluated, and the best representative for each is identified

Publicity and Common Commitment to Believe

Information can be public among a group. Whether or not information is public matters, for example, for accounts of interdependent rational choice, of communication, and of joint intention. A standard analysis of public information identifies it with (some variant of) common belief. The latter notion is stipulatively defined as an infinite conjunction: for p to be commonly believed is for it to believed by all members of a group, for all members to believe that all members believe it, and so forth. This analysis is often presupposed without much argument in philosophy. Theoretical entrenchment or intuitions about cases might give some traction on the question, but give little insight about why the identification holds, if it does. The strategy of this paper is to characterize a practical-normative role for information being public, and show that the only things that play that role are (variants of) common belief as stipulatively characterized. In more detail: a functional role for “taking a proposition for granted” in non-isolated decision making is characterized. I then present some minimal conditions under which such an attitude is correctly held. The key assumption links this attitude to beliefs about what is public. From minimal a priori principles, we can argue that a proposition being public among a group entails common commitment to believe among that group. Later sections explore partial converses to this result, the factivity of publicity and publicity from the perspective of outsiders to the group, and objections to the aprioricity of the result deriving from a posteriori existential presuppositions

Nonclassical minds and indeterminate survival

Revisionary theories of logic or truth require revisionary theories of mind. This essay outlines nonclassically based theories of rational belief, desire, and decision making, singling out the supervaluational family for special attention. To see these nonclassical theories of mind in action, this essay examines a debate between David Lewis and Derek Parfit over what matters in survival. Lewis argued that indeterminacy in personal identity allows caring about psychological connectedness and caring about personal identity to amount to the same thing. The essay argues that Lewis's treatment of two of Parfit's puzzle cases—degreed survival and fission—presuppose different nonclassical treatments of belief and desire

Rational Illogicality

Many accounts of structural rationality give a special role to logic. This paper reviews the problem case of clear-eyed logical uncertainty. An account of rational norms on belief that does not give a special role to logic is developed: doxastic probabilism

How to find an attractive solution to the liar paradox

The general thesis of this paper is that metasemantic theories can play a central role in determining the correct solution to the liar paradox. I argue for the thesis by providing a specific example. I show how Lewis’s reference-magnetic metasemantic theory may decide between two of the most influential solutions to the liar paradox: Kripke’s minimal fixed point theory of truth and Gupta and Belnap’s revision theory of truth. In particular, I suggest that Lewis’s metasemantic theory favours Kripke’s solution to the paradox over Gupta and Belnap’s. I then sketch how other standard criteria for assessing solutions to the liar paradox, such as whether a solution faces a so-called revenge paradox, fit into this picture. While the discussion of the specific example is itself important, the underlying lesson is that we have an unused strategy for resolving one of the hardest problems in philosophy

Measurement of the branching fraction and CP content for the decay B(0) -> D(*+)D(*-)

This is the pre-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the links below. Copyright @ 2002 APS.We report a measurement of the branching fraction of the decay B0→D*+D*- and of the CP-odd component of its final state using the BABAR detector. With data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.4  fb-1 collected at the Υ(4S) resonance during 1999–2000, we have reconstructed 38 candidate signal events in the mode B0→D*+D*- with an estimated background of 6.2±0.5 events. From these events, we determine the branching fraction to be B(B0→D*+D*-)=[8.3±1.6(stat)±1.2(syst)]×10-4. The measured CP-odd fraction of the final state is 0.22±0.18(stat)±0.03(syst).This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF (Germany), INFN (Italy), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A.P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation