Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

WHAT IS THE CORRECT LOGIC OF NECESSITY, ACTUALITY AND APRIORITY?

  • PETER FRITZ (a1)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with a propositional modal logic with operators for necessity, actuality and apriority. The logic is characterized by a class of relational structures defined according to ideas of epistemic two-dimensional semantics, and can therefore be seen as formalizing the relations between necessity, actuality and apriority according to epistemic two-dimensional semantics. We can ask whether this logic is correct, in the sense that its theorems are all and only the informally valid formulas. This paper gives outlines of two arguments that jointly show that this is the case. The first is intended to show that the logic is informally sound, in the sense that all of its theorems are informally valid. The second is intended to show that it is informally complete, in the sense that all informal validities are among its theorems. In order to give these arguments, a number of independently interesting results concerning the logic are proven. In particular, the soundness and completeness of two proof systems with respect to the semantics is proven (Theorems 2.11 and 2.15), as well as a normal form theorem (Theorem 3.2), an elimination theorem for the actuality operator (Corollary 3.6), and the decidability of the logic (Corollary 3.7). It turns out that the logic invalidates a plausible principle concerning the interaction of apriority and necessity; consequently, a variant semantics is briefly explored on which this principle is valid. The paper concludes by assessing the implications of these results for epistemic two-dimensional semantics.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*JESUS COLLEGE TURL STREET OXFORD, OX1 3DW, UK E-mail: peter.fritz@philosophy.ox.ac.uk

References

Hide All
Bezhanishvili, N. (2002). Varieties of two-dimensional cylindric algebras. Part I: Diagonal-free case. Algebra Universalis, 48, 1142.
Bezhanishvili, N., & Marx, M. (2003). All proper normal extensions of S5-square have the polynomial size property. Studia Logica, 73, 367382.
Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal Logic, Vol. 53, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boolos, G. (1993). The Logic of Provability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, R. A. (1966). That all normal extensions of S4.3 have the finite model property. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 12, 341344.
Burgess, J. P. (1999). Which modal logic is the right one? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40, 8193.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2004). Epistemic two-dimensional semantics. Philosophical Studies, 118, 153226.
Chalmers, D. J. (2006). The foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In García- Carpintero, M., & Macià, J., editors. Two-Dimensional Semantics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55140.
Chalmers, D. J. (2011). Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Noûs, 45, 595639.
Chalmers, D. J., & Rabern, B. (forthcoming). Two-dimensional semantics and the nesting problem. Analysis.
Cresswell, M. J. (2009). Non-denumerable infinitary modal logic. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 14, 6371.
Crossley, J. N., & Humberstone, L. (1977). The logic of “actually”. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 8, 1129.
Davies, M., & Humberstone, L. (1980). Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies, 38, 130.
Dugundji, J. (1940). Note on a property of matrices for Lewis and Langford’s calculi of propositions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 150151.
Fritz, P. (2011). Matrices and modalities: On the logic of two-dimensional semantics. Master’s thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. Available from: http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Reports/MoL-2011-02.text.pdf.
Fritz, P. (2013). A logic for epistemic two-dimensional semantics. Synthese, 190, 17531770.
Gabbay, D. M., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2003). Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications, Vol. 148, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gabbay, D. M., & Shehtman, V. B. (1998). Products of modal logics, part 1. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6, 73146.
Gregory, D. (2011). Iterated modalities, meaning and a priori knowledge. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11, 111.
Gärdenfors, P. (1973). On the extensions of S5. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 14, 277280.
Hanson, W. H. (2006). Actuality, necessity, and logical truth. Philosophical Studies, 130, 437459.
Hazen, A. (1978). The eliminability of the actuality operator in propositional modal logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 19, 617622.
Hazen, A. P., Rin, B. G., & Wehmeier, K. F. (2013). Actuality in propositional modal logic. Studia Logica, 101, 487503.
Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.
Humberstone, L. (2004). Two-dimensional adventures. Philosophical Studies, 118, 1765.
Humberstone, L. (2011). The Connectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kamp, H. (1971). Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria, 37, 227273.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H., editors. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481563.
Kreisel, G. (1967). Informal rigour and completeness proofs. In Lakatos, I., editor. Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 138186.
Kripke, S. A. (1965). Semantical analysis of modal logic II. Non-normal modal propositional calculi. In Addison, J. W., Henkin, L., & Tarski, A., editors. The Theory of Models. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 206220.
Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D., & Harman, G., editors. Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 253355, 763–769.
Prior, A. N. (1961). On a family of paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 2, 1632.
Prior, A. N. (1968). “Now”. Noûs, 2, 101119.
Restall, G. (2012). A cut-free sequent system for two-dimensional modal logic, and why it matters. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163, 16111623.
Salmon, N. (1989). The logic of what might have been. Philosophical Review, 98, 334.
Scroggs, S. J. (1951). Extensions of the Lewis system S5. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 16, 112120.
Segerberg, K. (1971). An Essay in Classical Modal Logic. vol. 13, Filosofiska Studier. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
Smith, P. (2011). Squeezing arguments. Analysis, 71, 2230.
Soames, S. (2005). Reference and Description: The Case Against Two-Dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tarski, A. (2002). On the concept of following logically. History and Philosophy of Logic, 23, 155196. Originally published in Polish and German, 1936.
Tucker, D., & Thomason, R. H. (2011). Paradoxes of intensionality. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 394411.
Vlach, F. (1973). ‘Now’ and ‘Then’: A Formal Study in the Logic of Tense Anaphora. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Williamson, T. (2013). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

WHAT IS THE CORRECT LOGIC OF NECESSITY, ACTUALITY AND APRIORITY?

  • PETER FRITZ (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.