From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability

We generalize the Kolmogorov axioms for probability calculus to obtain conditions defining, for any given logic, a class of probability functions relative to that logic, coinciding with the standard probability functions in the special case of classical logic but allowing consideration of other classes of “essentially Kolmogorovian” probability functions relative to other logics. We take a broad view of the Bayesian approach as dictating inter alia that from the perspective of a given logic, rational degrees of belief are those representable by probability functions from the class appropriate to that logic. Classical Bayesianism, which fixes the logic as classical logic, is only one version of this general approach. Another, which we call Intuitionistic Bayesianism, selects intuitionistic logic as the preferred logic and the associated class of probability functions as the right class of candidate representions of epistemic states (rational allocations of degrees of belief). Various objections to classical Bayesianism are, we argue, best met by passing to intuitionistic Bayesianism – in which the probability functions are taken relative to intuitionistic logic – rather than by adopting a radically non-Kolmogorovian, e.g. non-additive, conception of (or substitute for) probability functions, in spite of the popularity of the latter response amongst those who have raised these objections. The interest of intuitionistic Bayesianism is further enhanced by the availability of a Dutch Book argument justifying the selection of intuitionistic probability functions as guides to rational betting behaviour when due consideration is paid to the fact that bets are settled only when/if the outcome betted on becomes known.

[1]  Paul Teller,et al.  Conditionalization and observation , 1973, Synthese.

[2]  J. Paris The Uncertain Reasoner's Companion: A Mathematical Perspective , 1994 .

[3]  Geoffrey Hellman,et al.  Bayes and beyond , 1997, Philosophy of Science.

[4]  Charles G. Morgan,et al.  Conditionals, probability, and non-triviality , 1995, J. Philos. Log..

[5]  Charles Morgan,et al.  Probabilistic Semantics for Formal Logic , 1983 .

[6]  D. Christensen Dutch-Book Arguments Depragmatized: Epistemic Consistency For Partial Believers , 1996 .

[7]  D. Schmeidler Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity , 1989 .

[8]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[9]  Jaines M. Joyce A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism , 1998, Philosophy of Science.

[10]  G. L. S. Shackle,et al.  Expectation in Economics , 1951 .

[11]  A. Morton Betting on Theories: (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory) , 1994 .

[12]  P. Maher,et al.  Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments , 1997, Philosophy of Science.

[13]  Mark Kaplan Decision Theory as Philosophy , 1983, Philosophy of Science.

[14]  P. Maher Betting on Theories , 1993 .

[15]  Charles G. Morgan,et al.  Probability theory, intuitionism, semantics, and the Dutch book argument , 1983, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[16]  Charles G. Morgan,et al.  Probabilistic semantics for intuitionistic logic , 1983, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[17]  D. Lewis Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities , 1976 .

[18]  G. L. S. Shackle,et al.  Expectation in Economics , 1951 .

[19]  Martin Edman The Probable and the Provable , 1980 .