Probabilities in Branching Structures

Conference paper
Part of the The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective book series (PSEP, volume 2)

Abstract

A common, natural view about probabilities, shared by philosophers of diverse persuasions, is that probabilities are graded possibilities. On this view, which I will presuppose, there are no probabilities without underlying possibilities, and there is room for different notions of probability at least to the extent that there are different underlying notions of possibility.

Keywords

Probability Space Sample Space Real Possibility Choice Point Metaphysical Possibility 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the audience and my co-symposiasts at the ESF Workshop Physical and Philosophical Perspectives on Probability, Explanation and Time, Zeist, 20 October 2009, for helpful discussions.

Bibliography

  1. Belnap, N. (1992). Branching space-time. Synthese, 92:385–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap, N. (1999). Concrete transitions. In Meggle, G., editor, Actions, Norms, Values: Discussions with Georg Henrik von Wright, pages 227–236. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Belnap, N. (2002a). Double time references: Speech-act reports as modalities in an indeterminist setting. In Wolter, F., Wansing, H., de Rijke, M., and Zakharyaschev, M., editors, Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 3, pages 37–58. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap, N. (2002b). EPR-like “funny business” in the theory of branching spacetimes. In Placek, T. and Butterfield, J., editors, Non-locality and Modality, pages 293–315. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Belnap, N. (2003). No-common-cause EPR-like funny business in branching space-times. Philosophical Studies, 114:199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belnap, N. (2005). A theory of causation: Causae causantes (originating causes) as inus conditions in branching space-times. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:221–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belnap, N. (2007). Propensities and probabilities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(3):593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (2005). Modality and Tense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors (1984). Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. McCall, S. (1990). Choice trees. In Dunn, J. and Gupta, A., editors, Truth or Consequences. Essays in Honor of Nuel Belnap, pages 231–244. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Müller, T. (2005). Probability theory and causation: A branching space-times analysis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56:487–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller, T., Belnap, N., and Kishida, K. (2008). Funny business in branching spacetimes: infinite modal correlations. Synthese, 164:141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Popper, K. (1982). Quantum Theory and the Schism of Physics. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  14. Prior, A. N. (1957). Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Prior, A. N. (1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thomason, R. H. (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In Gabbay and Guenthner (1984), pages 135–165.Google Scholar
  17. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and Action. A Logical Inquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Weiner, M. and Belnap, N. (2006). How causal probabilities might fit into our objectively indeterministic world. Synthese, 149:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weyl, H. (1940). The ghost of modality. In Farber, M., editor, Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl, pages 278–303. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations