Charles B. Cross

[IMPORTANT CORRECTION - See end of abstract.] In Syntactical Treatments of Modality, with Corollaries on Reflexion Principles and Finite Axiomatizability, Acta Philosophica Fennica 16 (1963), 153–167, Richard Montague shows that the use of a single syntactic predicate (with a context-independent semantic value) to represent modalities of alethic necessity and idealized knowledge leads to inconsistency. In A Note on Syntactical Treatments of Modality, Synthese 44 (1980), 391–395, Richmond Thomason obtains a similar impossibility result for idealized belief: under a syntactical treatment of belief, the assumption that idealized belief is deductively closed, together with certain other plausible conditions on idealized belief, imply that an ideal believer with consistent beliefs cannot believe the truth of Robinson's Arithmetic. In this essay I assert an impossibility result similar to Thomason's but which does not assume that belief is deductively closed or ideal in any other way. There are technical mistakes in the formulations of Lemmas 1-4 and Theorem 2, however. Corrections can be found in the Erratum section of the author's website.

In "Against the Indicative," AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY 72 (1994): 17-26, and more recently in "Classifying `Conditionals': the Traditional Way is Wrong", ANALYSIS 60 (2000): 147, V.H. Dudman argues that (a) `If Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy then someone else did' and (b) `If Oswald doesn't shoot Kennedy then someone else will' should not be classified together as "indicative conditionals." Dudman relies on the assumption that (a) is entailed by (c) `Someone shot Kennedy', whereas (b) is not entailed by (d) `Someone will shoot Kennedy'. I argue that the same reasoning which shows that (d) does not entail (b) also shows that (c) does not entail (a). One upshot is that Dudman's and Mellor's respective interpretations of so-called past indicative conditionals cannot be correct.

Discrepancies between an agent's goals and beliefs play an important, if implicit, role in determining what a rational agent is motivated to do. This is most obvious in cases where an agent achieves a complex goal incrementally and must deliberate anew as each milestone is reached. In such cases the concept of goal/belief discrepancy defines an appropriate space to which a degree-of-achievement yardstick can be applied. This paper presents soundness and completeness results concerning a logic for reasoning about goal/belief discrepancy, and it is suggested that a certain species of goal/belief discrepancy captures the concept of desire

Possible worlds talk is, in my view, a metaphor, and what makes it a good metaphor is its capacity to be extended and elaborated in fruitful ways. The essays in this dissertation all concern ways of adding structure to the basic apparatus of possible worlds semantics--the Kripke frame--so as to make it bear more fruit. ;One way of adding structure is to think of possible worlds as histories. In "A Theory of Conditionals in the Context of Branching Time" Richmond Thomason and Anil Gupta use this approach to place Stalnaker's theory of the conditional into a temporal context. They formulate two principles about the relation between historical necessity and the conditional--Past Predominance and the Edelberg Inference--and investigate how these principles place constraints on branching time models of conditional tense logic. In the second chapter of this dissertation I show that Past Predominance can be articulated using Kripke frames, and I prove a completeness theorem for such structures. ;Another way of elaborating the possible worlds metaphor is to introduce apparatus for describing relationships between or among possible worlds. Using this strategy Robert Stalnaker devised a semantic theory of conditional logic that involves a selection function, and in the third and fourth chapters of this dissertation I show how to use selection functions to organize intuitions about causation and ability, respectively. ;A third way of elaborating the possible worlds metaphor is to generalize the notion of a Kripke frame. Bas van Fraassen has shown that the most rational way of characterizing semantic entailment in probabilistic semantics involves replacing individual Popper functions with well-behaved sets of them: probabilistic model sets. The upshot of this is that Popper functions in probabilistic model sets are analogous to possible worlds in Kripke frames, and probabilistic model sets are themselves analogous to Kripke frames. In the final chapter of my dissertation I carry the analogy further by giving a probabilistic semantics for modal logic in which modal operators function as quantifiers over Popper functions in probabilistic model sets, thereby generalizing Kripke's semantics for modal logic along the lines van Fraassen sets out