Metalogic and the Overgeneration Argument

A prominent objection against the logicality of second-order logic is the so-called Overgeneration Argument. However, it is far from clear how this argument is to be understood. In the first part of the article, we examine the argument and locate its main source, namely, the alleged entanglement of second-order logic and mathematics. We then identify various reasons why the entanglement may be thought to be problematic. In the second part of the article, we take a metatheoretic perspective on the matter. We prove a number of results establishing that the entanglement is sensitive to the kind of semantics used for second-order logic. These results provide evidence that by moving from the standard set-theoretic semantics for second-order logic to a semantics which makes use of higher-order resources, the entanglement either disappears or may no longer be in conflict with the logicality of second-order logic

Are Impossible Worlds Trivial?

Theories of content are at the centre of philosophical semantics. The most successful general theory of content takes contents to be sets of possible worlds. But such contents are very coarse-grained, for they cannot distinguish between logically equivalent contents. They draw intensional but not hyperintensional distinctions. This is often remedied by including impossible as well as possible worlds in the theory of content. Yet it is often claimed that impossible worlds are metaphysically obscure; and it is sometimes claimed that their use results in a trivial theory of content. In this paper, I set out the need for impossible worlds in a theory of content; I briefly sketch a metaphysical account of their nature; I argue that worlds in general must be very fine-grained entities; and, finally, I argue that the resulting conception of impossible worlds is not a trivial one

Impossible worlds

Impossible worlds are representations of impossible things and impossible happenings. They earn their keep in a semantic or metaphysical theory if they do the right theoretical work for us. As it happens, a worlds-based account provides the best philosophical story about semantic content, knowledge and belief states, cognitive significance and cognitive information, and informative deductive reasoning. A worlds-based story may also provide the best semantics for counterfactuals. But to function well, all these accounts need use of impossible and as well as possible worlds. So what are impossible worlds? Graham Priest claims that any of the usual stories about possible worlds can be told about impossible worlds, too. But far from it. I'll argue that impossible worlds cannot be genuine worlds, of the kind proposed by Lewis, McDaniel or Yagisawa. Nor can they be ersatz worlds on the model proposed by Melia or Sider. Constructing impossible worlds, it turns out, requires novel metaphysical resources

Impossible worlds

Impossible worlds are representations of impossible things and impossible happenings. They earn their keep in a semantic or metaphysical theory if they do the right theoretical work for us. As it happens, a worlds-based account provides the best philosophical story about semantic content, knowledge and belief states, cognitive significance and cognitive information, and informative deductive reasoning. A worlds-based story may also provide the best semantics for counterfactuals. But to function well, all these accounts need use of impossible and as well as possible worlds. So what are impossible worlds? Graham Priest claims that any of the usual stories about possible worlds can be told about impossible worlds, too. But far from it. I'll argue that impossible worlds cannot be genuine worlds, of the kind proposed by Lewis, McDaniel or Yagisawa. Nor can they be ersatz worlds on the model proposed by Melia or Sider. Constructing impossible worlds, it turns out, requires novel metaphysical resources

Game Semantics, Quantifiers and Logical Omniscience

Logical omniscience states that the knowledge set of ordinary rational agents is closed for its logical consequences. Although epistemic logicians in general judge this principle unrealistic, there is no consensus on how it should be restrained. The challenge is conceptual: we must find adequate criteria for separating obvious logical consequences (consequences for which epistemic closure certainly holds) from non-obvious ones. Non-classical game-theoretic semantics has been employed in this discussion with relative success. On the one hand, with urn semantics [15], an expressive fragment of classical game semantics that weakens the dependence relations between quantifiers occurring in a formula, we can formalize, for a broad array of examples, epistemic scenarios in which an individual ignores the validity of some first-order sentence. On the other hand, urn semantics offers a disproportionate restriction of logical omniscience. Therefore, an improvement of this system is needed to obtain a better solution of the problem. In this paper, I argue that our linguistic competence in using quantifiers requires a sort of basic hypothetical logical knowledge that can be formulated as follows: when inquiring after the truth-value of ∀xφ, an individual might be unaware of all substitutional instances this sentence accepts, but at least she must know that, if an element a is given, then ∀xφ holds only if φ(x/a) is true. This thesis accepts game-theoretic formalization in terms of a refinement of urn semantics. I maintain that the system so obtained (US+) affords an improved solution of the logical omniscience problem. To do this, I characterize first-order theoremhood in US+. As a consequence of this result, we will see that the ideal reasoner depicted by US+ only knows the validity of first-order formulas whose Herbrand witnesses can be trivially found, a fact that provides strong evidence that our refinement of urn semantics captures a relevant sense of logical obviousness

The Problem of Rational Knowledge

Real-world agents do not know all consequences of what they know. But we are reluctant to say that a rational agent can fail to know some trivial consequence of what she knows. Since every consequence of what she knows can be reached via chains of trivial cot be dismissed easily, as some have attempted to do. Rather, a solution must give adequate weight to the normative requirements on rational agents’ epistemic states, without treating those agents as mathematically ideal reasoners. I’ll argue that agents can fail to know trivial consequences of what they know, but never determinately. Such cases are epistemic oversights on behalf of the agent in question, and the facts about epistemic oversights are always indeterminate facts. As a result, we are never in a position to assert that such-and-such constitutes an epistemic oversight for agent i (for we may rationally assert only determinate truths). I then develop formal epistemic models according to which epistemic accessibility relations are vague. Given these models, we can show that epistemic oversights always concern indeterminate cases of knowledg

Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Paradoxes of Mathematical Proof

Wittgenstein's paradoxical theses that unproved propositions are meaningless, proofs form new concepts and rules, and contradictions are of limited concern, led to a variety of interpretations, most of them centered on rule-following skepticism. We argue, with the help of C. S. Peirce's distinction between corollarial and theorematic proofs, that his intuitions are better explained by resistance to what we call conceptual omniscience, treating meaning as fixed content specified in advance. We interpret the distinction in the context of modern epistemic logic and semantic information theory, and show how removing conceptual omniscience helps resolve Wittgenstein's paradoxes and explain the puzzle of deduction, its ability to generate new knowledge and meaning

Teoria tradicional da informação semântica sem escândalo da dedução : uma reavaliação moderadamente externalista do tópico baseada em semântica urna e uma aplicação paraconsistente

Orientador: Walter Alexandre CarnielliTese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências HumanasResumo: A presente tese mostra que é possível reestabelecer a teoria tradicional da informação semântica (no que segue apenas TSI, originalmente proposta por Bar-Hillel e Carnap (1952, 1953)) a partir de uma descrição adequada das condições epistemológicas de nossa competência semântica. Uma consequência clássica de TSI é o assim chamado escândalo da dedução (no que segue SoD), tese segundo a qual verdades lógicas têm quantidade nula de informação. SoD é problemático dado que conflita com o caráter ampliativo do conhecimento formal. Baseado nisso, trabalhos recentes (e.g., Floridi (2004)) rejeitam TSI apesar de suas boas intuições sobre a natureza da informação semântica. Por outro lado, esta tese reconsidera a estratégia de assumir a semântica urna (RANTALA, 1979) como o pano de fundo metateórico privilegiado para o reestabelecimento de TSI sem SoD. A presente tese tem o seguinte plano. O capítulo 1 introduz o plano geral da tese. No capítulo 2, valendo-se fortemente de trabalhos clássicos sobre o externalismo semântico, eu apresento algum suporte filosófico para essa estratégia ao mostrar que a semântica urna corretamente caracteriza as condições epistemológicas de nossa competência semântica no uso de quantificadores. O capitulo 3 oferece uma descrição precisa da semântica urna a partir da apresentação de suas definições básicas e alguns de seus teoremas mais funda- mentais. No capítulo 4, eu me concentro mais uma vez no tema da informação semântica ao formalizar TSI em semântica urna e provar que nesse contexto SoD não vale. Finalmente, nos capítulos 5 e 6 eu considero resultados modelo-teóricos mais avançados sobre semântica urna e exploro uma possível aplicação paraconsistente das ideias principais dessa tese, respectivamenteAbstract: This thesis shows that it is possible to reestablish the traditional theory of semantic information (TSI, originally proposed by Bar-Hillel and Carnap (1952, 1953)) by providing an adequate account of the epistemological conditions of our semantic competence. A classical consequence of TSI is the so-called scandal of deduction (hereafter SoD) according to which logical truths have null amount of information. SoD is problematic since it does not make room for the ampliative character of formal knowledge. Based on this, recent work on the subject (e.g., Floridi (2004)) rejects TSI despite its good insights on the nature of semantic information. On the other hand, this work reconsiders the strategy of taking urn semantics (RANTALA, 1979) as a privileged metatheoretic framework for the formalization of TSI without SoD. The present thesis is planned in the following way. Chapter 1 introduces the thesis¿ overall plan. In chapter 2, relying heavily on classical works on semantic externalism, I present some philosophical support for this strategy by showing that urn semantics correctly characterizes the epistemological conditions of our semantic competence in the use of quantifiers. Chapter 3 offers a precise description of urn semantics by characterizing its basic definitions and some of its most fundamental theorems. In chapter 4, turning the focus once again to semantic information, I formalize TSI in urn semantics and show that in this context SoD does not hold. Finally, in chapter 5 and 6 I consider more advanced model-theoretic results on urn semantics and explore a paraconsistent possible application of the present idea, respectivelyDoutoradoFilosofiaDoutor em Filosofia142038/2014-8CNP