Properties, Propositions and Conditionals

ABSTRACT Section 1 discusses properties and propositions, and some of the motivation for an account in which property instantiation and propositional truth behave ‘naively’. Section 2 generalizes a standard Kripke construction for naive properties and propositions, in a language with modal operators but no conditionals. Whereas Kripke uses a 3-valued value space, the generalized account allows for a broad array of value spaces, including the unit interval [0,1]. This is put to use in Section 3, where I add to the language a conditional suitable for restricting quantification. The shift from a value space based on the ‘mini-space’ {0, , 1} to one based on the ‘mini-space’ [0,1] leads to more satisfactory results than I was able to achieve in previous work: a vast variety of paradoxical sentences can now be treated very simply. In Section 4 I make a further addition to the language, a conditional modeled on the ordinary English conditional, paying particular attention to how it interacts with the restricted quantifier conditional. This is all done in the [0,1] framework, and two alternatives are considered for how the ordinary conditional is to be handled; one of them results from adding a tweak to a construction by Ross Brady. Section 5 discusses a further alternative, a standard relevance conditional (for the ordinary conditional, perhaps for use with a different quantifier-restricting conditional), but argues that it is not promising. Section 6 discusses the identity conditions of properties and propositions (again in the setting of a value space based on [0,1]); the issue of achieving naivety for coarse-grained properties is seen to be more complicated than some brief remarks in Field [2010] suggested, but a way to get a fair degree of coarse-grainedness is shown.

[1]  Classical and Nonclassical Logics , 2020 .

[2]  Tore Fjetland Øgaard,et al.  Prospects for a Naive Theory of Classes , 2017, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[3]  Hartry Field,et al.  INDICATIVE CONDITIONALS, RESTRICTED QUANTIFICATION, AND NAIVE TRUTH , 2015, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[4]  Shawn Standefer On Artifacts and Truth-Preservation , 2015 .

[5]  Greg Restall What are we to accept, and what are we to reject, while saving truth from paradox? , 2010 .

[6]  Hartry Field Saving Truth From Paradox , 2008 .

[7]  S. Yablo New Grounds for Naive Truth Theory , 2004 .

[8]  Petr Hájek,et al.  The liar paradox and fuzzy logic , 2000, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[9]  N. Belnap,et al.  The Revision Theory of Truth , 1993 .

[10]  Greg Restall Arithmetic and truth in L/ukasiewicz''s infinitely valued logic , 1992 .

[11]  Albert Visser,et al.  Four valued semantics and the Liar , 1984, J. Philos. Log..

[12]  Ross T. Brady The simple consistency of a set theory based on the logic CSQ , 1983, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[13]  David Lewis,et al.  Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals , 1981, J. Philos. Log..

[14]  John P. Burgess,et al.  Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals , 1981, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[15]  François George,et al.  On Contradiction , 1978, Telos.

[16]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Truth , 1975 .

[17]  Robert Stalnaker A Theory of Conditionals , 2019, Knowledge and Conditionals.