From belief change to modality: Epistemic semantics for modal and conditional logic

IF 1.4 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Niklas Dahl
{"title":"From belief change to modality: Epistemic semantics for modal and conditional logic","authors":"Niklas Dahl","doi":"10.1007/s11098-025-02459-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper sets out to extend the epistemic semantics presented in Dahl (2023) to modal and conditional logics. To do so, I extend the notion of belief expansion systems, inspired by the AGM-model of belief change, to include <jats:italic>belief revision</jats:italic> , and use the resulting structures as models for both conditional and modal logic. In the first case, this applies the well-known approach to conditionals initiated by Gärdenfors (1978), but in a weaker setting which doesn’t assume an underlying logic. As such, we get semantics for both classical conditional logic and the intuitionistic conditionals studied by Weiss (2019). For modal logics, I use the condition that <jats:inline-formula> <jats:tex-math>$$\\Box \\varphi$$</jats:tex-math> </jats:inline-formula> is accepted if and only if <jats:inline-formula> <jats:tex-math>$$\\varphi$$</jats:tex-math> </jats:inline-formula> is accepted under every belief revision. As a result of this system of semantics, we get soundness and completeness theorems for both classical and non-classical systems of modal and conditional logic on the basis of a single type of structure. Finally, I briefly discuss how models based on belief change can still be thought to explain the semantics of objective modal claims.","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02459-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper sets out to extend the epistemic semantics presented in Dahl (2023) to modal and conditional logics. To do so, I extend the notion of belief expansion systems, inspired by the AGM-model of belief change, to include belief revision , and use the resulting structures as models for both conditional and modal logic. In the first case, this applies the well-known approach to conditionals initiated by Gärdenfors (1978), but in a weaker setting which doesn’t assume an underlying logic. As such, we get semantics for both classical conditional logic and the intuitionistic conditionals studied by Weiss (2019). For modal logics, I use the condition that $$\Box \varphi$$ is accepted if and only if $$\varphi$$ is accepted under every belief revision. As a result of this system of semantics, we get soundness and completeness theorems for both classical and non-classical systems of modal and conditional logic on the basis of a single type of structure. Finally, I briefly discuss how models based on belief change can still be thought to explain the semantics of objective modal claims.
从信念变化到情态:情态与条件逻辑的认知语义
本文打算将Dahl(2023)中提出的认知语义扩展到模态逻辑和条件逻辑。为此,我扩展了信念扩展系统的概念,受信念变化的agm模型的启发,包括信念修正,并使用结果结构作为条件逻辑和模态逻辑的模型。在第一种情况下,这将应用由Gärdenfors(1978)发起的众所周知的条件方法,但在不假设底层逻辑的较弱设置中。因此,我们得到了经典条件逻辑和Weiss(2019)研究的直觉主义条件的语义。对于模态逻辑,我使用$$\Box \varphi$$被接受当且仅当$$\varphi$$在每个信念修正下被接受的条件。基于这一语义系统,我们得到了基于单一类型结构的经典和非经典模态和条件逻辑系统的完备性定理。最后,我简要地讨论了基于信念变化的模型如何仍然被认为可以解释客观模态主张的语义。
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
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书