×

Agents necessitating effects in Newtonian time and space: from power and opportunity to effectivity. (English) Zbl 1452.03022

Summary: We extend stit logic by adding a spatial dimension. This enables us to distinguish between powers and opportunities of agents. Powers are agent-specific and do not depend on an agent’s location. Opportunities do depend on locations, and are the same for every agent. The central idea is to define the real possibility to see to the truth of a condition in space and time as the combination of the power and the opportunity to do so. The focus on agent-relative powers and space-relative opportunities firmly roots effectivity of an autonomous choice making agent in a space-time picture. Our space-time view will be classically Newtonian, since we will assume relativistic phenomena do not play a role in agentive effectivity. We show how our semantics naturally distinguishes between different kinds of histories; histories that reflect real (factual) possibilities and histories that reflect counterfactual possibilities (of a particular hypothetical kind). Furthermore, we discuss how the spatial picture sheds light on conceptual problems plaguing the central stit property of ‘independence of agency’. At several points in the article we will emphasise and defend the differences with Belnap’s theory of agency in relativistic branching space-times.

MSC:

03A10 Logic in the philosophy of science
83C99 General relativity
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Alur, R., Henzinger, T. A., & Kupferman, O. (2002). Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 49(5), 672-713. · Zbl 1326.68181 · doi:10.1145/585265.585270
[2] Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Intention (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[3] Belnap, N. (1991). Before refraining: Concepts of agency. Erkenntnis, 34, 137-169. · doi:10.1007/BF00385718
[4] Belnap, N. (1992). Branching space – time. Synthese, 92, 385-434. · Zbl 0776.03001 · doi:10.1007/BF00414289
[5] Belnap, N.; Vanderveken, D. (ed.), Agents and agency in branching space – times, 291-313 (2005), Amsterdam · Zbl 1082.03003
[6] Belnap, N., & Green, M. (1994). Indeterminism and the thin red line. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 365-388. · doi:10.2307/2214178
[7] Bratman, M. (2014). Shared agency: A planning theory of acting together. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001
[8] Chellas, B. (1980). Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · Zbl 0431.03009 · doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621192
[9] Chellas, B. F. (1995). On bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 563-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01306966. · Zbl 0841.03011 · doi:10.1007/BF01306966
[10] Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195. · doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5
[11] Chemero, A., & Turvey, M. (2007). Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adaptive Behavior, 15(4), 473. · doi:10.1177/1059712307085098
[12] Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., & van der Torre, L. (2013). Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems. London: College Publications. · Zbl 1309.03001
[13] Gabbay, D., & Shehtman, V. (1998). Products of modal logics, part 1. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6(1), 73. · Zbl 0902.03008 · doi:10.1093/jigpal/6.1.73
[14] Gasquet, O., & Herzig, A. (1993). Translating non-normal modal logics into normal modal logics. In A.I.J Jones & M. Sergot (Eds.), Proceedings international workshop on deontic logic, TANO, Oslo. · Zbl 0867.03007
[15] Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
[16] Horty, J. F., & Belnap, N. D. (1995). The deliberative stit: A study of action, omission, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6), 583-644. · Zbl 0846.03001 · doi:10.1007/BF01306968
[17] Kanger, S. (1972). Law and logic. Theoria, 38(3), 105-132. · Zbl 0265.02020 · doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.1972.tb00928.x
[18] Kowalski, R., & Sergot, M. (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4, 67-95. · Zbl 1356.68221 · doi:10.1007/BF03037383
[19] Kracht, M., & Wolter, F. (1999). Normal monomodal logics can simulate all others. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 64, 99-138. · Zbl 0972.03019 · doi:10.2307/2586754
[20] Kurucz, A., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2003). A note on relativised products of modal logics. In P. Balbiani, N.-Y. Suzuki, F. Wolter & M. Zakharyaschev (Eds.), Advances in modal logic (Vol. 4, pp. 221-242). CSLI Publications. · Zbl 1082.03018
[21] Kurucz, K.; Benthem, J. (ed.); Blackburn, P. (ed.); Wolter, F. (ed.), Combining modal logics, 869-924 (2007), Amsterdam
[22] Mayr, E. (2011). Understanding human agency. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606214.001.0001
[23] Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43. · doi:10.1145/301153.301168
[24] Pauly, M. (2002). A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 149-166. · Zbl 1003.91006 · doi:10.1093/logcom/12.1.149
[25] Pörn, I. (1970). The logic of power. Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.
[26] Ryle, G. (1971). Knowing how and knowing that. In Collected papers (Vol. 2, pp. 212-225). New York: Barnes and Nobles (First published 1946).
[27] Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
[28] Segerberg, K. (1967). On the logic of ‘tomorrow’. Theoria, 33, 45-52. · Zbl 0189.28301 · doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.1967.tb00609.x
[29] Segerberg, K. (2002). Outline of a logic of action. In Advances in modal logic (Vol. 3, pp. 365-387). World Scientific. · Zbl 1031.03054
[30] Sergot, M. (2008). The logic of unwitting collective agency. Technical report 2008/6, Department of Computing, Imperial College London.
[31] Tarski, A. (1986). What are logical notions? History and Philosophy of Logic, 7, 143-154. · Zbl 0622.03004 · doi:10.1080/01445348608837096
[32] Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173-187. · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0403_3
[33] van Ditmarsch, H., Halpern, J. Y., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of epistemic logic. London: College Publications. · Zbl 1392.03009
[34] Van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W., & Meyer, J. J. (1998). Formalising abilities and opportunities of agents. Fundamenta Informaticae, 34, 253-307. · Zbl 0903.68045
[35] Vetter, B. (2015). Potentiality, from dispositions to modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714316.001.0001
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.