Informational Semantics as a Third Alternative?
Informational semantics were first developed as an interpretation of the model-theory of substructural (and especially relevant) logics. In this paper we argue that such a semantics is of independent value and that it should be considered as a genuine alternative explication of the notion of logical consequence alongside the traditional model-theoretical and the proof-theoretical accounts. Our starting point is the content-nonexpansion platitude which stipulates that an argument is valid iff the content of the conclusion does not exceed the combined content of the premises. We show that this basic platitude can be used to characterise the extension of classical as well as non-classical consequence relations. The distinctive trait of an informational semantics is that truth-conditions are replaced by information-conditions. The latter leads to an inversion of the usual order of explanation: Considerations about logical discrimination (how finely propositions are individuated) are conceptually prior to considerations about deductive strength. Because this allows us to bypass considerations about truth, an informational semantics provides an attractive and metaphysically unencumbered account of logical consequence, non-classical logics, logical rivalry and pluralism about logical consequence.
- Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D., Dunn, J. M. (1992). Entailment. The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. II). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Barwise, J. (1993). Constraints, channels, and the flow of information. In P. Aczel, D. Israel, S. Peters, Y. Katagiri (Eds.), Situation theory and its applications (Vol. 3, pp. 3–27). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
- Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1999). Situation and attitudes. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Beall, J. C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Beall, J. C., Brady, R., Dunn, J. M., Hazen, A., Mares, E., Meyer, R. K., et al. (2011). On the ternary relation and conditionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, Online First. doi:10.1007/s10992-011-9191-5.
- Belnap, N. (1976). How a computer should think. Oxford international symposium on contemporary aspects of philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
- Carnap, R., & Bar-Hillel Y. (1952). An outline of a theory of semantic information. MIT, p 247.Google Scholar
- Dretske, F. (1999). Knowledge and the flow of information. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
- Israel, D., & Perry, J. (1990). What is information. In P. Hanson (Eds.), Information, language and cognition (pp. 1–19). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
- MacKay, D. M. (1969). Information, mechanism and meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Mares, E. D. (2008). Information, negation, and paraconsistency. Melbourne: WCP4.Google Scholar
- Mares, E. D. (2009b). Relevance and conjunction. Journal of Logic and Computation. doi:10.1093/logcom/exp068.
- Paoli, F. (2002). Substructural logics a primer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Priest, G. (2001). Logic: One or many? In J. Woods, & B. Brown (Eds.), Logical consequence: Rival approaches (pp. 23–38). Stanmore: Hermes.Google Scholar
- Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic. A philosophical examination of inference. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Read, S. (2003). Logical consequence as truth preservation. Logique & Analyse, 46(183–184), 479–493.Google Scholar
- Restall, G. (1995). Information flow and relevant logic. Logic, Language and Computation: The 1994 Moraga Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Restall, G. (1996). Notes on situation theory and channel theory.Google Scholar
- Restall, G. (2005). Logics, situations and channels. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 125–150.Google Scholar