<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">

<channel>
  <atom:link href="http://www.umsu.de/blog/rss.xml?comments=on&amp;entries=off&amp;mode=excerpt" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  <title>wo's weblog</title>
  <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/</link>
  <description>Musings in Analytic Philosophy</description>

  <item>
    <title>Comment by Alexander Pruss on 'Counterexamples to Good's Theorem'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2021/740#c2467</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2021/740#c2467</guid>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[Doesn&#039;t the move from (6&#039;) to (7&#039;) inherit all the issues that are facing (1&#039;)? Indeed, doesn&#039;t (1&#039;) follow by applying (6&#039;)=(7&#039;) to the special case where the partition (E_k) is trivial? Or am I missing something?]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by David Duffy on 'The tyranny of the objective'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/828#c2464</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/828#c2464</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 02:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[As to Isaacs et al, if one looks at this as a statistical problem, it is<br />
that of estimation of the binomial parameter n from a single observation (eg Jeffrey&#039;s tramcar). If p is known, then the generalized Bayes estimator of n with improper prior pi(n) ~ 1/n is 1/p. The likelihood ratio comparing two hypothetical n&#039;s should be (1-p)^(n1-n2) * n1/n2, so if p is small and n1=1, then it increases by 1 for each increment of n2.]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by David Duffy on 'The tyranny of the objective'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/828#c2463</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/828#c2463</guid>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[&quot;...the hypothesis that there is exactly one inhabited universe&quot; is<br />
different from &quot;I inhabit a universe&quot;<br />
<br />
I&#039;m feeling a bit dull, but doesn&#039;t the former imply non-independence of p&#039;s ie existence of life in U1 extinguishes probability of occurrence in the other universes? ]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by Jonathan Mai on 'Teaching logic: Tarski vs Mates vs "logical constants"'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2462</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2462</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 21:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[Yes, you&#039;re right about the associated proof systems using free variables. I forgot about that since I approach logic from a model theoretic standpoint.<br />
<br />
As an aside, using complete expansions of models that is, structures containing a constant for every member of the expanded model, is a usual device in elementary model theory (Robinson diagrams etc.). So in this respect the expansion based semantics for the quantifiers matches model theoretic perspectives rather well.]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by wo on 'Teaching logic: Tarski vs Mates vs "logical constants"'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2461</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2461</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 16:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[Thanks Jonathan. Right, I&#039;ve seen versions of this as well. I guess it&#039;s usually combined with proof systems that use free variables, so it&#039;s not quite what I had in mind. I&#039;m also worried that it reinforces use/mention mistakes: especially in maths context, many students need to be constantly reminded of the distinction between objects in the domain and our names for these objects.

On the flip side, in proof theory/tableau texts, one sometimes finds &quot;eigenvariable...]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by Jonathan Mai on 'Teaching logic: Tarski vs Mates vs "logical constants"'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2460</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2025/822#c2460</guid>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2026 22:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[Your approach resembles the alternative to a satisfaction based semantics for quantification you find in several introductory texts on mathematical logic (van Dalen and Hedman, for instance): What we define is a truth relation between models and sentences. The truth definition for universally quantified sentences involves the truth of all of its instances in an expanded model which contains a fresh constant for every member of the model in question.<br />
<br />
]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by David Duffy on 'Are we living in a computer simulation?'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/827#c2458</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/827#c2458</guid>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[I see the simulation hypothesis as per Tipler 1994 (appealing to Dyson&#039;s &quot;Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe&quot;):

1) In the current cosmology &quot;observed&quot; within our simulation, a high computing future is quite possible.
2) There will be an interest by such future entities in running simulations of universes
3) The physics within simulations performed will be based the actual physics underlying those computers - Anthropic arguments might mean t...]]></description>
  </item>
    <item>
    <title>Comment by wo on 'Integrating centred information'</title>
    <link>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/826#c2457</link>
    <guid>https://www.umsu.de/blog/2026/826#c2457</guid>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
    <description><![CDATA[Thanks Stephan! I didn&#039;t know that paper. I still haven&#039;t read it, but from what you say, I probably don&#039;t fully agree with how Ismael &amp; Pollock describe the situation.

With respect to my beliefs, I don&#039;t think I genuinely locate myself inside my head. I self-attribute properties like being 180 cm tall, and I don&#039;t think anything inside my head is 180 cm tall. So the &quot;I am here&quot; arrow in my belief worlds doesn&#039;t seem to be pointing at something i...]]></description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
