Conversation

2 kids found 2 similar boxes. They opened box 1. It contained a cookie. Kid 1 immediately grabbed it and started eating it, saying “the other box probably has a cookie too; that one is yours” (proposition A)
2
20
By the time kid 2 got box 2 open and discovered it contained a lump of coal, kid 1 had eaten the cookie. Between the first bite of the cookie and the discovery of the lump of coal, both kids inhabited a reality where proposition A was assumed to be true.
1
4
This is what it means for a reality to be constructed out of the benefit of doubt. The brief period where Prop A *might* have been true was also the period when kid 1 was *really* eating the cookie.
1
6
In modal logic terms, the cookie was eaten in all possible worlds (P: ▢ the cookie is eaten by kid A) but there was a second cookie only in *some* possible worlds (Q: ⋄ There is a cookie). In between was world W where both P and Q were true for period T.
2
1
Replying to
Probability theory is a an unnecessary level of epistemology that is neither necessary not sufficient to account for modal structure of subjective reality. I’m trying to describe at a level that works even for belief dynamics of babies and chimps.
Replying to
I think de finetti answers this perfectly, and i agree with him that even simple living beings operate on subjective probability estimates all the time
1
Replying to
But not consciously Just as modulation of emotional states like caring, excitement etc via dopamine regulation mainly. “Probabilistic belief” maps to things like “engaged” or “apathetic” and is not determinative (other factors modulate those states too)
2
Show replies