Omniscience and Semantic Information

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Alonso,Bernardo
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000400077
Resumo: ABSTRACT First, I consider a few motivations to idealize epistemic logics1 in such a degree that brings up the problem of logical omniscience [LOP]. I argue that the main motivation to hold omniscience is of a philosophical-scientific2 background (Stalnaker 1991), in the sense philosophers have a not so peculiar way of investigating underlying mechanisms, i.e., the interaction of several different components of complex systems may be better understood in isolation, even if such components are not found isolated in a realistic context. It is defended that the implicit and explicit knowledge distinction (Fagin and Halpern 1988) is compatible that view since idealizations made by modal epistemic logic are so strong that the agents they describe hardly have anything in common with real agents. I conclude by showing how LOP can be accommodated in the logic of being informed (Floridi 2006) using the Inverse Relationship Principle (Barwise and Seligman 1997). 1Epistemic modal logics and the logic of being informed may collapse in many scenarios, as shown in previous articles (blind review omitted). 2Does not necessarily imply in a naturalized epistemology a la (Quine 1981). For a plea for non-naturalism as constructionism see (Floridi 2017).
id UNICAMP-17_e8afd02fd35a7d76f36d1be4a52232ca
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-60452017000400077
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Omniscience and Semantic InformationLogical Omniscience ProblemKnowledgeSemantic InformatioABSTRACT First, I consider a few motivations to idealize epistemic logics1 in such a degree that brings up the problem of logical omniscience [LOP]. I argue that the main motivation to hold omniscience is of a philosophical-scientific2 background (Stalnaker 1991), in the sense philosophers have a not so peculiar way of investigating underlying mechanisms, i.e., the interaction of several different components of complex systems may be better understood in isolation, even if such components are not found isolated in a realistic context. It is defended that the implicit and explicit knowledge distinction (Fagin and Halpern 1988) is compatible that view since idealizations made by modal epistemic logic are so strong that the agents they describe hardly have anything in common with real agents. I conclude by showing how LOP can be accommodated in the logic of being informed (Floridi 2006) using the Inverse Relationship Principle (Barwise and Seligman 1997). 1Epistemic modal logics and the logic of being informed may collapse in many scenarios, as shown in previous articles (blind review omitted). 2Does not necessarily imply in a naturalized epistemology a la (Quine 1981). For a plea for non-naturalism as constructionism see (Floridi 2017).UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000400077Manuscrito v.40 n.4 2017reponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMP10.1590/0100-6045.2017.v40n4.bainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlonso,Bernardoeng2018-02-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-60452017000400077Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0100-6045&lng=pt&nrm=isoPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpmwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2018-02-19T00:00Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Omniscience and Semantic Information
title Omniscience and Semantic Information
spellingShingle Omniscience and Semantic Information
Alonso,Bernardo
Logical Omniscience Problem
Knowledge
Semantic Informatio
title_short Omniscience and Semantic Information
title_full Omniscience and Semantic Information
title_fullStr Omniscience and Semantic Information
title_full_unstemmed Omniscience and Semantic Information
title_sort Omniscience and Semantic Information
author Alonso,Bernardo
author_facet Alonso,Bernardo
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Alonso,Bernardo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Logical Omniscience Problem
Knowledge
Semantic Informatio
topic Logical Omniscience Problem
Knowledge
Semantic Informatio
description ABSTRACT First, I consider a few motivations to idealize epistemic logics1 in such a degree that brings up the problem of logical omniscience [LOP]. I argue that the main motivation to hold omniscience is of a philosophical-scientific2 background (Stalnaker 1991), in the sense philosophers have a not so peculiar way of investigating underlying mechanisms, i.e., the interaction of several different components of complex systems may be better understood in isolation, even if such components are not found isolated in a realistic context. It is defended that the implicit and explicit knowledge distinction (Fagin and Halpern 1988) is compatible that view since idealizations made by modal epistemic logic are so strong that the agents they describe hardly have anything in common with real agents. I conclude by showing how LOP can be accommodated in the logic of being informed (Floridi 2006) using the Inverse Relationship Principle (Barwise and Seligman 1997). 1Epistemic modal logics and the logic of being informed may collapse in many scenarios, as shown in previous articles (blind review omitted). 2Does not necessarily imply in a naturalized epistemology a la (Quine 1981). For a plea for non-naturalism as constructionism see (Floridi 2017).
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000400077
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000400077
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0100-6045.2017.v40n4.ba
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito v.40 n.4 2017
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1748950065390551040