Posts on: Chalmers
If we want to model rational degrees of belief as probabilities,
the objects of belief should form a Boolean algebra. Let's call the
elements of this algebra propositions and its atoms (or
ultrafilters) worlds. Every proposition can be represented as a
set of worlds. But what are these worlds? For many applications, they
can't be qualitative possibilities about the universe as a whole, since
this would not allow us to model de se beliefs. A popular
response is to identify the worlds with triples of a possible universe,
a time and an individual. I prefer to say that they are maximally
specific properties, or ways a thing might be. David Chalmers (in
discussion, and in various papers, e.g. here and there) objects that
these accounts are not fine-grained enough, as revealed by David
Austin's "two tubes" scenario. Let's see.
Call an expression E scrutable with respect to a class of expressions C iff it is a priori that all true sentences involving both C and E are a priori deducible from all true sentences involving only C. Equivalently, E is scrutable with respect to C iff there are no worlds w1 and w2 of which exactly one is in the 1-intension of some C+E-sentence, whereas all 1-intensions of C-sentences contain either both worlds or neither.
Is every expression scrutable with respect to some class of expressions to which it does not belong? If the relevant language has synonyms for all expressions, that's trivial. We should better ask about families of expressions: what classes of expressions are scrutable only with respect to expressions containing other members of their class? Call such classes indispensible. Large classes of expressions like the class of all expressions are obviously indespensible, as is probably the class of indexicals and the class of quantifiers. Dave Chalmers would also add the class of phenomenal expressions. As a type-A materialist, I would rather not.
David Chalmers has an interesting post on the differences between his and Frank Jackson's versions of two-dimensionalism. It turns out that my reading of a certain passage in "Why we need A-intensions" was right: Jackson believes that truth at a world considered as actual is somehow reducible via de-rigidification to truth at a world considered as counterfactual.
I'm back. Here's a question that occurred to me while I was listening to Dave Chalmers's talk on scrutability.
First some background. One might think that for every world w there is a complete description D true at w such that all and only the sentences true at w follow a priori from D: simply let D contain all sentences true at w. Then all sentences true at w will be a priori entailed by D. However, if "true at" is read counterfactually, sometimes sentences false at w will also be so entailed. Consider Twin World where XYZ occupies the water role. "Water doesn't occupy the water role" is true at Twin World. But "water occupies the water role" is a priori, and hence a priori entailed by everything1. Thus every complete description of Twin World a priori entails a contradiction (and every sentence whatever).
Here's a little question about David Chalmers' paper "Does Conceivability entail Possibility?". I'm interested in the relation between what Chalmers calls strong scrutability and what he just calls scrutability. In particular, I wonder if strong scrutability is really stronger than mere scrutability. This depends on a claim Chalmers makes in sections 10 and 11: that if there are inscrutable truths, it follows that some statements are epistemically possible (not ruled out a priori) but yet not really (primarily) possible. My question is: why does that follow?
This is a rewrite of last week's posting, which I now find rather
obscure. Basically, I'm trying to introduce A-intensions in a way
different from the possibilities discussed in David Chalmers' "Foundations". The "contextual" approaches he discusses look
like non-starters to me, and I don't like his own "epistemic" account,
partly because of worries about his use of ideal language and partly
because I would very much like to explain a priori knowledge with knowledge
of A-intensions rather than the converse. Most importantly, I think there
is something wrong with the very question he asks. Or at least there's
something wrong with where the question is asked.
"Content" and its cognates are rather theoretical notions. We need them
to do semantics and psychology, but we don't have immediate acquaintance
with them. That's why I find it slightly puzzling when people say that the
content of a sentence or a mental state can be represented by, say,
a set of possible worlds or some kind of labeled tree, whereas in fact it
is no such thing. What do these people think the content is in fact?
Anyway, let's assume that (at least for a certain fragment of English)
sets of centered possible worlds can do duty for (or represent) the content
of sentences. On this account, the content of "it is raining" is
identified with a certain set of centered worlds, namely the set of worlds
where it is raining at the center. By the semantics of negation, the
content of "it is not raining" is the complement of this set. Analogously,
the content of "language exists" is a certain set of centered worlds,
namely the set of worlds where language exists, and the content of
"language does not exist" is the complement of that set.
Dave Chalmers kindly explained his views on deducibility to me. He thinks that anything one could reasonably call non-deferential understanding of the fundamental truths would suffice for being able in principle to deduce macrophysical facts, provided that these fundamental truths, unlike my P, contain phenomenal facts and laws of nature. He also notes that I shouldn't have called these restrictions (to non-deferential understanding and the rich content of fundamental truths) assumptions, since they are really just restrictions. I'm still not sure if any kind of non-deferential understanding would suffice, but with the restrictions in place it's not as easy to come up with counterexamples as I thought.
Back to the question of deducibility.
According to the deducibility thesis, the fundamental truths (plus
indexicals, plus a 'that's all' statement) a priori entail every truth.
More precisely, when P is a complete description of the fundamental
truths and M any other truth, then, according to the deducibility thesis,
the material conditional 'P
M' is a priori.
Dave Chalmers agrees that any concept can be explicitly analyzed by an
infinite conjunction of application-conditionals. But he wants to
restrict 'explicit analysis' to finite analyses. That certainly makes
sense, but I doubt that there are any concepts for which the
application-conditionals cannot be determined by finite means. For
example, I think it will usually suffice to partition the epistemic
possibilities into, say, 50 zillion cases and specify the extension in
each of these cases. Admittedly, I can't prove that, but the fact that concepts can be learned and our cognitive capacities are limited seem suggestive.
Dave Chalmers told me to
read some of his
papers. I have, and I'll probably say more on the
deducibility problem soon. Here is just a little thought on conceptual
analysis.
Chalmers suggests that we don't need explicit necessary and sufficient
conditions to analyse a concept. Rather, we can analyze it just by
considering its extension in hypothetical scenarios. What is it to
consider a hypothetical scenario? The result seems to depends on how the
scenario is presented. For example, 'the actual scenario' denotes the same
scenario as 'the closest scenario to the actual one in which water is H2O'.
But the difference in description could make a difference for judgements
about extensions. Chalmers avoids such problems by explaining
(§3.2, §3.5) that to consider a scenario is to pretend that a
certain canonical description is true. Hence to analyze a concept, we
evaluate material conditionals of the form 'if D then the extension of C is
E', where D is a canonical description. (Are there only denumerably many
epistemic possibilities or can D be infinite?) Now fix on a particular
concept C and let K be the (possibly infinite) conjunction of all those
'application
conditionals' (§3) that get evaluated as true. Replace every
occurrence of 'C' in K by a variable x. Then 'something x is C iff K' is
an explicit analysis giving necessary and sufficient conditions for being
C.
There may not always be a simple, obvious, or finite
explicit analysis, but at least there always is some explicit
analysis. If moreover satisficing is allowed, it is very likely that we
can settle with something much less than infinite.