From classical to intuitionistic probability. (English) Zbl 1069.60002

Weatherson, Brian

Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 44, No. 2, 111-123 (2003).

Summary: We generalize the Kolmogorov axioms for probability calculus to obtain conditions defining, for any given logic, a class of probability functions relative to that logic, coinciding with the standard probability functions in the special case of classical logic but allowing consideration of other classes of “essentially Kolmogorovian” probability functions relative to other logics. We take a broad view of the Bayesian approach as dictating inter alia that from the perspective of a given logic, rational degrees of belief are those representable by probability functions from the class appropriate to that logic. Classical Bayesianism, which fixes the logic as classical logic, is only one version of this general approach. Another, which we call intuitionistic Bayesianism, selects intuitionistic logic as the preferred logic and the associated class of probability functions as the right class of candidate representions of epistemic states (rational allocations of degrees of belief). Various objections to classical Bayesianism are, we argue, best met by passing to intuitionistic Bayesianism – in which the probability functions are taken relative to intuitionistic logic – rather than by adopting a radically non-Kolmogorovian, for example, nonadditive, conception of (or substitute for) probability functions, in spite of the popularity of the latter response among those who have raised these objections. The interest of intuitionistic Bayesianism is further enhanced by the availability of a Dutch Book argument justifying the selection of intuitionistic probability functions as guides to rational betting behavior when due consideration is paid to the fact that bets are settled only when/if the outcome bet on becomes known.

MSC:

60A05	Axioms; other general questions in probability
03B20	Subsystems of classical logic (including intuitionistic logic)

Keywords:

probability; intuitionistic logic; Kolmogorov axioms; Classical Bayesianism; intuitionistic Bayesianism; Dutch Book argument

References:

[1]	Christensen, D., ”Dutch-book arguments depragmatized: Epistemic consistency for partial believers”, The Journal of Philosophy , vol. 93 (1996), pp. 450–79.
[2]	Cohen, L. J., The Probable and the Provable , Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.
[3]	Dempster, A. P., ”Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping”, Annals of Mathematical Statistics , vol. 38 (1967), pp. 325–39. · Zbl 0168.17501 · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177698950
[4]	Harman, G., ”Problems with probabilistic semantics”, pp. 243–47 in Developments in Semantics , edited by erseeditorsnames A . Orenstein and R. Stern, Haven, New York, 1984.
[5]	Hellman, G., ”Bayes and beyond”, Philosophy of Science , vol. 64 (1997), pp. 191–221. · doi:10.1086/392548
[6]	Howson, C., and P. Urbach, Scientific Reasoning , Open Court, La Salle, 1989.
[7]	Joyce, J. M., ”A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism”, Philosophy of Science , vol. 65 (1998), pp. 575–603. · doi:10.1086/392661
[8]	Kaplan, M., Decision Theory as Philosophy , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. · Zbl 0885.62004
[9]	Lewis, D., ”Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probability II”, Philosophical Review , vol. 95 (1986), pp. 297–315.
[10]	Lewis, D., ”Why conditionalise?”, pp. 403–407 in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology , Cambridge Studies in Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
[11]	Maher, P., Betting on Theories , Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
[12]	Maher, P., ”Depragmatized Dutch book arguments”, Philosophy of Science , vol. 64 (1997), pp. 291–305. · doi:10.1086/392552
[13]	Morgan, C. G., and H. Leblanc, ”Probabilistic semantics for intuitionistic logic”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic , vol. 24 (1983), pp. 161–80. · Zbl 0466.60003 · doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093870307
[14]	Morgan, C., and E. Mares, ”Conditionals, probability and non-triviality”, Journal of Philosophical Logic , vol. 24 (1995), pp. 455–67. · Zbl 0838.03016 · doi:10.1007/BF01052599
[15]	Morgan, C. G., and H. Leblanc, ”Probability theory, intuitionism, semantics, and the Dutch book argument”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic , vol. 24 (1983), pp. 289–304. · Zbl 0531.03037 · doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093870372
[16]	Paris, J. B., The Uncertain Reasoner’s Companion. A Mathematical Perspective , vol. 39 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. · Zbl 0838.68104 · doi:10.1017/CBO9780511526596
[17]	Ponsonnet, J.-M., ”The best and the worst in G. L. S. Shackle’s decision theory”, pp. 169–96 in Uncertainty in Economic Thought , edited by C. Schmidt, E. Elgar, Cheltham, 1996.
[18]	Ramsey, F., ”Truth and probability”, pp. 156–98 in The Foundations of Mathematics , edited by R. Braithwaite, Routledge, London, 1931.
[19]	Savage, L. J., The Foundations of Statistics , John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1954. · Zbl 0055.12604
[20]	Schmeidler, D., ”Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity”, Econometrica , vol. 57 (1989), pp. 571–87. · Zbl 0672.90011 · doi:10.2307/1911053
[21]	Shackle, G., Expectation in Economics , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1949. · Zbl 1256.01031
[22]	Shafer, G., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976. · Zbl 0359.62002
[23]	Shafer, G., ”Constructive probability”, Synthese , vol. 48 (1981), pp. 1–60. · Zbl 0522.60001 · doi:10.1007/BF01064627
[24]	Teller, P., ”Conditionalization and observation”, Synthese , vol. 26 (1973), pp. 218–58. · Zbl 0277.62004 · doi:10.1007/BF00873264
[25]	Zadeh, L. A., ”Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems , vol. 1 (1978), pp. 3–28. · Zbl 0377.04002 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5