Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

William Balthes

-My research consists in the foundations, and philosophy of probability, and developing a novel conception of single case objective chance.

  • This concerns the nature of single case objective chance (propensity) and its relation to logic and full belief, credence, and counter-factual/conditional logic, and decision theory vis a vis qualitative dominance/logic -state-wise-dominance/conditional-logic dominance.

  • Primarily concerns, the solving the issue of the : Principle Principal of David Lewis, in all of its forms, as qualitative, numerical, qualitative (Actualist) and numerical Actualist PP.

-And the interpretation and foundation of the concept of 'probability".

Propensities as the truth-makers of the world needed to facilitate the strange mind-to world connection required to connect propensity to their required connection to conditional logic, and the doxastic attitudes of agents, in order to answer the challenge of the Principal Principle.

I try to answer at very least this questions:

$$PP_{1}:\text{numerical, non-Actualist Principle Principal often call the Principal Principle}.$$


"Why is one (guaranteed to be?) better, off, on the single case, using the single case alone, without indifference or relative frequency principles, having one's subjective probabilities, denoted/credences denoted: $Cr$, aligned with aligned with the objective chance . values/probabilities denoted: $PR$? - Where by "more"- I mean that this is graded, via dominance/logic, alone, in the sense of:


And justified in terms of dominance alone, vis a vis conditional beliefs in virtue of the underlying objective single case propensity account that I develop using a weird resistance concept to facilitate the required mind-world connection.

$$PR(A)>PR(B) \iff [A\supset B].$$

$$\text{or more generally}:$$

$$[PR(A)>PR(B)] \iff [A\to B].$$

$$PR(A)=PR(B)\iff\[A\leftrightarrow B].$$

Which is meant to taken literally in my account of probability. Including, but not limited to, the case of two equi-probable and thus "logically equivalent, yet, mutually exclusive and exhaustive, events: $$\frac{1}{2}=PR(A)=PR(¬A)\iff [A↔¬A].$$

people reached
  • Bellbowrie, Queensland, 4070, Australia
  • Member for 4 years, 2 months
  • 435 profile views
  • Last seen Dec 29 '18 at 11:11

Top tags (72)

Score 6
Posts 24
Posts % 25
Score 4
Posts 22
Score 1
Posts 16
Score 1
Posts 16
Score 0
Posts 24
Score 0
Posts 15

Top posts (95) All Questions Answers | Votes Newest

View all questions and answers

Badges (21)