The standard dynamic norm of Bayesianism,
conditionalization, is clearly inadequate if credences are
defined over self-locating propositions. How should it be adjusted?
This question was popular at around 2005-2015. Chris Meacham and I
came up with the same answer, which we published in (Meacham 2010),
(Schwarz
2012), and (Schwarz 2015). I showed that the
replacement norm that we proposed has all the traditional virtues of
conditionalization. For example, (under the usual idealized conditions)
following the norm uniquely maximizes expected accuracy, and an agent is
invulnerable to diachronic Dutch books iff they follow the norm.
Assume that for any proposition A there is a proposition \(\Box A\) saying that A ought to be the
case. One can imagine an agent – call him Frederic – whose only basic
desire is that whatever ought to be the case is the case. As a result,
he desires any proposition A in proportion to his belief that it ought
to be the case:
\[\begin{equation*}
(1)\qquad V(A) = Cr(\Box A).
\end{equation*}
\]
Let w be a maximally specific proposition. Such a "world" settles all
descriptive and all normative matters. In particular, w entails either
\(\Box w\) or \(\neg \Box w\). Suppose w entails \(\Box w\). Does Frederick desire to live in
such a world? Yes. On the assumption that w is actual, the entire world
is as it ought to be. That's what Frederick wants. So he desires w.
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.