Shivaram Lingamneni

I analyze a recent exchange between Adam Elga and Julian Jonker concerning unsharp (or imprecise) credences and decision-making over them. Elga holds that unsharp credences are necessarily irrational; I agree with Jonker's reply that they can be rational as long as the agent switches to a nonlinear valuation. Through the lens of computational complexity theory, I then argue that even though nonlinear valuations can be rational, they come in general at the price of computational intractability, and that this problematizes their use in defining rationality. I conclude that the meaning of "rationality" may be philosophically vague.

I argue that contemporary set theory, as depicted in the 2011–2012 EFI lecture series, lacks a program that promises to decide, in a genuinely realist fashion, the continuum hypothesis (CH) and related questions about the “width” of the universe. We can distinguish three possible objectives for a realist completion of set theory: maximizing structures, maximizing sets, and maximizing interpretive power. However, none of these is allied to a program that can plausibly decide CH. I discuss the implications of this for set theory and other foundational programs.