8,400 research outputs found
Capturing equilibrium models in modal logic
International audienceHere-and-there models and equilibrium models were investigated as a semantical framework for answer-set programming by Pearce, Valverde, Cabalar, Lifschitz, Ferraris and others. The semantics of equilibrium logic is given in an indirect way: the notion of satisfiability is defined in terms of satisfiability in propositional logic and in the logic of here-and-there. We here give a direct semantics of equilibrium logic, stated in terms of a modal language embedding the language of equilibrium logic
Introduction: Scientific Explanation Beyond Causation
This is an introduction to the volume "Explanation Beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-Causal Explanations", edited by A. Reutlinger and J. Saatsi (OUP, forthcoming in 2017).
Explanations are very important to us in many contexts: in science, mathematics, philosophy, and also in everyday and juridical contexts. But what is an explanation? In the philosophical study of explanation, there is long-standing, influential tradition that links explanation intimately to causation: we often explain by providing accurate information about the causes of the phenomenon to be explained. Such causal accounts have been the received view of the nature of explanation, particularly in philosophy of science, since the 1980s. However, philosophers have recently begun to break with this causal tradition by shifting their focus to kinds of explanation that do not turn on causal information. The increasing recognition of the importance of such non-causal explanations in the sciences and elsewhere raises pressing questions for philosophers of explanation. What is the nature of non-causal explanations - and which theory best captures it? How do non-causal explanations relate to causal ones? How are non-causal explanations in the sciences related to those in mathematics and metaphysics? This volume of new essays explores answers to these and other questions at the heart of contemporary philosophy of explanation. The essays address these questions from a variety of perspectives, including general accounts of non-causal and causal explanations, as well as a wide range of detailed case studies of non-causal explanations from the sciences, mathematics and metaphysics
Modeling of Phenomena and Dynamic Logic of Phenomena
Modeling of complex phenomena such as the mind presents tremendous
computational complexity challenges. Modeling field theory (MFT) addresses
these challenges in a non-traditional way. The main idea behind MFT is to match
levels of uncertainty of the model (also, problem or theory) with levels of
uncertainty of the evaluation criterion used to identify that model. When a
model becomes more certain, then the evaluation criterion is adjusted
dynamically to match that change to the model. This process is called the
Dynamic Logic of Phenomena (DLP) for model construction and it mimics processes
of the mind and natural evolution. This paper provides a formal description of
DLP by specifying its syntax, semantics, and reasoning system. We also outline
links between DLP and other logical approaches. Computational complexity issues
that motivate this work are presented using an example of polynomial models
You better play 7: mutual versus common knowledge of advice in a weak-link experiment
This paper presents the results of an experiment on mutual versus common knowledge of advice in a two-player weak-link game with random matching. Our experimental subjects play in pairs for thirteen rounds. After a brief learning phase common to all treatments, we vary the knowledge levels associated with external advice given in the form of a suggestion to pick the strategy supporting the payoff- dominant equilibrium. Our results are somewhat surprising and can be summarized as follows: in all our treatments both the choice of the efficiency-inducing action and the percentage of efficient equilibrium play are higher with respect to the control treatment, revealing that even a condition as weak as mutual knowledge of level 1 is sufficient to significantly increase the salience of the efficient equilibrium with respect to the absence of advice. Furthermore, and contrary to our hypothesis, mutual knowledge of level 2 induces, under suitable conditions, successful coordination more frequently than common knowledge
You Better Play 7: Mutual versus Common Knowledge of Advice in a Weak-link Experiment
This paper presents the results of an experiment on mutual versus common knowl- edge of advice in a two-player weak-link game with random matching. Our experimen- tal subjects play in pairs for thirteen rounds. After a brief learning phase common to all treatments, we vary the knowledge levels associated with external advice given in the form of a suggestion to pick the strategy supporting the payoff-dominant equilib- rium. In the mutual knowledge of level 1 treatment, the suggestion appears on every subject's monitor at the beginning of every round, with no common knowledge that everybody sees the same suggestion. In the mutual knowledge of level 2 treatment, the same suggestion appears on each subject's monitor, accompanied by the request to "send" the suggestion to the partner in the round, followed by a notification that the message has been read. Finally, in the common knowledge treatment, the suggestion is read aloud by the experimenter at the end of the learning phase. Our results are somewhat surprising and can be summarized as follows: in all our treatments both the choice of the efficiency-inducing action and the percentage of efficient equilibrium play are higher with respect to the control treatment, revealing that even a condition as weak as mutual knowledge of level 1 is sufficient to significantly increase the salience of the efficient equilibrium with respect to the absence of advice. Furthermore, and contrary to our hypothesis, mutual knowledge of level 2 (as the one occurring in our "message" treatment) induces successful coordination more frequently than common knowledge.Coordination games; experimental philosophy; epistemic attitudes, weak-link game; conventions
Standard State Space Models of Unawareness
The impossibility theorem of Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini has been thought to demonstrate
that standard state-space models cannot be used to represent unawareness. We first show that Dekel,
Lipman and Rustichini do not establish this claim. We then distinguish three notions of awareness,
and argue that although one of them may not be adequately modeled using standard state spaces,
there is no reason to think that standard state spaces cannot provide models of the other two notions.
In fact, standard space models of these forms of awareness are attractively simple. They allow us
to prove completeness and decidability results with ease, to carry over standard techniques from
decision theory, and to add propositional quantifiers straightforwardly
- …