Bare indicative conditionals are bewildering, but they become
surprisingly well-behaved if we add an 'else' clause.
Intuitively, 'if A then B' doesn't make an outright claim about the
world. It says that B is the case if A is the case – but what
if A isn't the case?
An 'else' clause resolves this question. 'If A then B else C' makes
an outright claim. It says that either B or C is the case, depending on
whether A is the case. That is: the world is either an A-world, in which
case it is also a B-world, or it is a ¬A-world, in which case it is a
C-world. For short: (A∧B)∨(¬A∧C).
Frege argued that number concept are, in the first place, second-order predicates. When we talk about numbers as objects, we use a logical device of "nominalization" that introduces object-level representations of higher-level properties. In Grundgesetze, he assumed that every first-order predicate can be nominalized: for every first-order predicate F, there is an associated object – the "extension" of F – such that F and G are associated with the same object iff ∀x(Fx ↔︎ Gx). The number N is then identified with the extension of 'having an extension with N elements'. Unfortunately, the assumption that every predicate has an extension turned out to be inconsistent, so the whole approach collapsed.
In "Quasi-Realism is Fictionalism" (Lewis (2005)), Lewis seems to suggest that Blackburn's quasi-realism about moral discourse is a kind of fictionalism. The suggestion is bizarre. Has Lewis made silly mistake? (Spoiler: No.)
Let's compare what quasi-realism and fictionalism say about moral discourse.
Blackburn's quasi-realism (as presented, e.g., in Blackburn (1984, ch.6) and Blackburn (1993)) is a brand of expressivism. According to Blackburn, moral statements like (1) don't serve to describe special facts, but to express moral attitudes.
Bruno de Finetti (de Finetti (1970)) suggested that chance is objectified credence. The suggestion is explained and defended in Jeffrey (1983, ch.12), Skyrms (1980 ch.I), Skyrms (1984, ch.3), and Diaconis and Skyrms (2017, ch.7), but I still find it hard to understand. It seems to assume that rational credence functions are symmetrical in a way in which I think they shouldn't be.