Studia Logica

, Volume 51, Issue 3–4, pp 379–437 | Cite as

Process and Action: Relevant Theory and Logics

  • Richard Sylvan
Logic of Action
Received:
Revised:
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Whileprocess andaction are fundamental notions, in ubiquitous use, they lack satisfactory logical treatment in two critical respects: in analyses of the fundamentals themselves and in logical development. For what treatment they have so far received, under classical systematisation, leaves significant lacunae and induces much paradox. A relevant logical relocation, carried through in detail here, removes such problems, and provides solid ground-work for a satisfactory treatment.

Firstly, as to fundamentals: processes should be explicated, so it is argued, as certain sorts of (time) directed functions (from inputs to outputs); thus they can be represented through certain ordered pairs of relations. Significant logical structures they can enter into are investigated: notably, process lattice and coupled logics, and a generalized category theory (tolerating nonassociativity of composition).

Actions are types of processes, agent-ascribed process. As stock analyses of the differentia, operators and agency, through intentionality, rationality and so on, demonstrably fail, new causal analyses are proposed.

Secondly, as to logical developments: for the most part, the apparently diverse offering of process and action logics to be encountered in the literature are but multiple modal logics: modal logics enriched with further functors of interesting modal sorts. Some, for example, like advertised “process logics” are dynamic logics (themselves basically multiple modal logics) enriched by tense logical functors, themselves modal in character. In a way that is now becoming nonstandardly standard, these modal enterprises can be reworked on relevant logical bases. A main point to such exercises resembles that of other relevant reworkings: namely, the search for correctness, for adequacy to pre-analytic and linguistic data, and therewith removal of paradoxes and anomalies that accumulate under modal analyses.

Logical components from a properly expanded Humean model of action are supplied with relevant logics and semantics, in particulardoing, trying andstriving, intention andmotivation. The difficult question of formalising practical inference is then addressed.

Relevant dynamic logics, paralleling modal developments, are built up piece by piece, relevant theory change is considered within a dynamic framework, and work on relevant temporal and process logics of programming cast, including functors such asbefore, during andthroughout, is initiated. The present state of logical play is assessed.

Keywords

Modal Logic Satisfactory Treatment Category Theory Relevant Theory Dynamic Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. B. Angel,Reasoning and Logic, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. L. Åqvist,Deontic logic, in Gabbay and Guenthner, pp. 605–714.Google Scholar
  3. J. Bishop,Natural Agency, An Essay on the Causal Theory of Action, Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. D. Bohm,Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. C. Cherniak,Minimal Rationality, Bradford, Cambridge, Mass, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. H. B. Curry,Foundations of Mathematical Logic, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  7. F. B. Fitch,A logical analysis of some value concepts,Journal of Symbolic Logic 28 (1963), pp. 135–142.Google Scholar
  8. A. Fuhrmann,Relevant Logics, Modal Logics and Theory Change, ARP, RSSS, Australian National University, 1988; revised Konstanz, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. D. Gabbay andF. Guenthner (eds.),Handbook of Philosophy Logic, vol. II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. A. I. Goldman,Theory of Human Action, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. D. Harel,Dynamic logic, in Gabbay and Guenthner, pp. 497–604.Google Scholar
  12. D. Harel, D. Kozen andR. Parikh,Process logic: expressiveness, decidability, completeness,Journal of Computer and System Sciences 25 (1982), pp. 144–170.Google Scholar
  13. A. MacIntyre,Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. S. Maclane,Categories for the Working Mathematician, N.Y. Springer-Verlag, 1971.Google Scholar
  15. A. Maggiolo-Schettini andJ. Winkowski,Processes of transforming structure,Journal of Computer and System Sciences 24 (1982), pp. 245–282.Google Scholar
  16. J. Norman andR. Sylvan (eds.),Directions in Relevant Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989; referred to as DRL.Google Scholar
  17. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971; referred to as OED.Google Scholar
  18. I. Pörn,Action Theory and Social Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. R. K. Rennie,Theories of procedures I. Simple conditionals,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 10 (1968), pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
  20. R. Routley and others,Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Ridgeview, California, 1982; referred to as RLR.Google Scholar
  21. R. Routley andV. Plumwood,Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions,Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy # 6, Australian National University, 1984; referred to as MD.Google Scholar
  22. R. Routley,Exploring Meinong's Jungle and Beyond, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1980; referred to as JB.Google Scholar
  23. R. Routley,Philosophical and linguistic inroads: Multiply intensional relevant logics, in Norman and Sylvan, 1989, pp. 269–304; referred to as PLI.Google Scholar
  24. K. Segerberg,Towards an exact philosophy of action,Topoi 3 (1984), pp. 75–83.Google Scholar
  25. K. Segerberg,Representing facts,Auckland Philosophy Papers, Philosophy Department, University of Auckland, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. K. Segerberg,Getting started: beginnings in the logic of action, inLe teorie delle modalita, Clueb, Bologne, Italy, 1989, pp. 221–230.Google Scholar
  27. R. Sylvan,Wide-ranging philosophy application of relevant logics: a survey, typescript, Canberra, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. R. Sylvan, A. Fuhrmann andJ. Los,Assertion and Commitment and Conditional Obligation, Research Series in Logic and Metaphysics, #6, Research School of Social Science, Australian National University, 1990; referred to as AC.Google Scholar
  29. R. Sylvan, L. Goddard andN. Da Costa,Reason, Cause and Relevant Containment, Research Series in Logic and Metaphysics # 3, Research School of Social Science, Australian National University, 1989; referred to as RCR.Google Scholar
  30. R. Sylvan andI. Urbas,Factorisation Logics, Research Series in Logic and Metaphysics # 5, Australian National Univeristy, 1989; referred to as FL.Google Scholar
  31. R. Sylvan,Freedom without determinism, typescript, Canberra, 1991; referred to as FD.Google Scholar
  32. G. H. von Wright,Norm and Action, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963.Google Scholar
  33. G. H. von Wright,Practical Reason, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
  34. A. N. Whitehead,Process and Reality: an Essay in Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1929.Google Scholar
  35. A. N. Whitehead andB. Russell,Principia Mathematica, vol. 1, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, 1950; referred to as PM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Sylvan
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy Program, R.S.S.S.Australian National UniversityCanberra

Personalised recommendations