Wigner and Friends, A Map is not the Territory! Contextuality in Multi-agent Paradoxes

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Sidiney B. Montanhano
{"title":"Wigner and Friends, A Map is not the Territory! Contextuality in Multi-agent Paradoxes","authors":"Sidiney B. Montanhano","doi":"10.1007/s10699-024-09971-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multi-agent scenarios, like Wigner’s friend and Frauchiger–Renner scenarios, can show contradictory results when a non-classical formalism must deal with the knowledge between agents. Such paradoxes are described with multi-modal logic as violations of the structure in classical logic. Even if knowledge is treated in a relational way with the concept of trust, contradictory results can still be found in multi-agent scenarios. Contextuality deals with global inconsistencies in empirical models defined on measurement scenarios even when there is local consistency. In the present work, we take a step further to treat the scenarios in full relational language by using knowledge operators, thus showing that trust is equivalent to the Truth Axiom in these cases. A translation of measurement scenarios into multi-agent scenarios by using the topological semantics of multi-modal logic is constructed, demonstrating that logical contextuality can be understood as the violation of soundness by supposing mutual knowledge. To address the contradictions, assuming distributed knowledge is considered, which eliminates such violations but at the cost of lambda-dependence. We conclude by translating the main examples of multi-agent scenarios to their empirical model representation, contextuality is identified as the cause of their contradictory results.</p>","PeriodicalId":55146,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Science","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09971-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multi-agent scenarios, like Wigner’s friend and Frauchiger–Renner scenarios, can show contradictory results when a non-classical formalism must deal with the knowledge between agents. Such paradoxes are described with multi-modal logic as violations of the structure in classical logic. Even if knowledge is treated in a relational way with the concept of trust, contradictory results can still be found in multi-agent scenarios. Contextuality deals with global inconsistencies in empirical models defined on measurement scenarios even when there is local consistency. In the present work, we take a step further to treat the scenarios in full relational language by using knowledge operators, thus showing that trust is equivalent to the Truth Axiom in these cases. A translation of measurement scenarios into multi-agent scenarios by using the topological semantics of multi-modal logic is constructed, demonstrating that logical contextuality can be understood as the violation of soundness by supposing mutual knowledge. To address the contradictions, assuming distributed knowledge is considered, which eliminates such violations but at the cost of lambda-dependence. We conclude by translating the main examples of multi-agent scenarios to their empirical model representation, contextuality is identified as the cause of their contradictory results.

维格纳和朋友们,地图不是领土!多智能体悖论中的情境性
多智能体场景,如Wigner的朋友和frachiger - renner场景,当非经典形式主义必须处理智能体之间的知识时,可能会显示出矛盾的结果。这种悖论用多模态逻辑描述为对经典逻辑结构的违背。即使将知识与信任概念以关系的方式处理,在多智能体场景中仍然可以发现矛盾的结果。情境性处理在测量场景中定义的经验模型中的全局不一致性,即使存在局部一致性。在目前的工作中,我们进一步使用知识运算符在完全关系语言中处理场景,从而表明信任在这些情况下等同于真理公理。利用多模态逻辑的拓扑语义构造了测量场景到多智能体场景的转换,证明了通过假设相互知识可以将逻辑上下文性理解为对健全性的违背。为了解决这些矛盾,假设考虑了分布式知识,这消除了这种违反,但以lambda依赖为代价。通过将多智能体场景的主要示例转换为其经验模型表示,我们得出结论,情境性是导致其结果相互矛盾的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foundations of Science
Foundations of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Foundations of Science focuses on methodological and philosophical topics of foundational significance concerning the structure and the growth of science. It serves as a forum for exchange of views and ideas among working scientists and theorists of science and it seeks to promote interdisciplinary cooperation. Since the various scientific disciplines have become so specialized and inaccessible to workers in different areas of science, one of the goals of the journal is to present the foundational issues of science in a way that is free from unnecessary technicalities yet faithful to the scientific content. The aim of the journal is not simply to identify and highlight foundational issues and problems, but to suggest constructive solutions to the problems. The editors of the journal admit that various sciences have approaches and methods that are peculiar to those individual sciences. However, they hold the view that important truths can be discovered about and by the sciences and that truths transcend cultural and political contexts. Although properly conducted historical and sociological inquiries can explain some aspects of the scientific enterprise, the editors believe that the central foundational questions of contemporary science can be posed and answered without recourse to sociological or historical methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信