Self-location and Causal Context

in Grazer Philosophische Studien
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The paper proposes a novel principle of rational self-locating belief that refers to the epistemic agent’s causal context. The principle is motivated and applied to some of the most-discussed problems of self-locating belief including the Doomsday Argument, the Serpent’s Advice scenario, the Presumptuous Philosopher problem, the Sleeping Beauty problem, and the problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation. It is shown to yield plausible verdicts in all these cases.

Self-location and Causal Context

in Grazer Philosophische Studien

Sections

References

BostromNick2001: “ The Doomsday Argument, Adam & Eve, un++, and Quantum Joe”. Synthese 127359387.

BostromNick2002a: Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. New York: Routledge.

BostromNick2002b: “ Self-locating Belief in Big Worlds: Cosmology’s Missing Link to Observation”. Journal of Philosophy 99607623.

BostromNick2007: “ Sleeping Beauty and Self-location: A Hybrid Model”. Synthese 1575978.

BostromNick and ĆirkovićMilan M.2003: “ The Doomsday Argument and the Self-indication Assumption: Reply to Olum”. The Philosophical Quarterly 538391.

BradleyDarren2009: “ Multiple Universes and Observation-selection Effects”. American Philosophical Quarterly 466172.

BradleyDarren2011: “ Self-location Is no Problem for Conditionalization”. Synthese 182393411.

BradleyDarren2012: “ Four Problems of Self-locating Belief”. Philosophical Review 121149177.

BradleyDarren2015: “ Everettian Confirmation and Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Wilson”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66683693.

BriggsRachel2010: “ Putting a Value on Beauty”. In: Tamar SzaboGendler and JohnHawthorne (eds.) Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume3. Oxford: Oxford University Press334.

CarterBrandon1974: “ Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology”. In: Malcolm S.Longair (ed.) Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Data. Dordrecht: Reidel291298.

CozicMikal2011: “ Imaging and Sleeping Beauty: A Case for Double-halfers”. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52137143.

DieksDennis2007: “ Reasoning about the Future: Doom and Beauty”. Synthese 156427439.

ElgaAdam2000: “ Self-locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem”. Analysis 60143147.

ElgaAdam2004: “ Defeating Dr. Evil with Self-locating Belief”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69383396.

GottJ. Richard1993: “ Implications of the Copernican Principle for Our Future Prospects”. Nature 363315319.

HawleyPatrick2013: “ Inertia, Optimism and Beauty”. Nous 4785103.

KierlandBrian and MontonBradley2005: “ Minimizing Inaccuracy for Self-locating Beliefs”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70384395.

KimNamjoong2009: “ Sleeping Beauty and Shifted Jeffrey Conditionalization”. Synthese 168295312.

LeitgebHannes2010: “ Sleeping Beauty and Eternal Recurrence”. Analysis 70203205.

LeslieJohn1996: The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. London: Routledge.

LewisDavid1979: “ Attitudes De Dicto and De Se”. The Philosophical Review 88513543.

LewisDavid1986: “ A Subjectivists’s Guide to Objective Chance”. In: Philosophical Papers Vol. ii. New York: Oxford University Press83132; originally published 1980 in: Richard C.Jeffrey (ed.) Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability Vol. ii. Berkeley: University of California Press.

LewisDavid2001: “ Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga”. Analysis 61171176.

LewisDavid2004: “ How Many Lives Has Schrödinger’s Cat?”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82322.

LewisPeter J.2007: “ Quantum Sleeping Beauty”. Analysis 675965.

LewisPeter J.2010: “ A Note on the Doomsday Argument”. Analysis 702730.

McMullinErnan1993: “ Indifference Principle and Anthropic Principle in Cosmology”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24359389.

MeachamChristopher J. G.2008: “ Sleeping Beauty and the Dynamics of De Se Belief”. Philosophical Studies 138245269.

MeachamChristopher J. G.2010: “ Unravelling the Tangled Web: Continuity, Internalism, Uniqueness, and Self-locating Belief”. In: Tamar SzaboGendler and JohnHawthorne (eds.) Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume3. Oxford: Oxford University Press86125.

MossSarah2012: “ Updating as Communication”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research85225248.

NealRadford M. 2006: “Puzzles of Anthropic Reasoning Resolved Using Full Non-indexical Conditioning”. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0608592.

NortonJohn2010: “ Cosmic Confusion: Not Supporting versus Supporting Not-”. Philosophy of Science 7750123.

OlumKen2002: “ The Doomsday Argument and the Number of Possible Observers”. The Philosophical Quarterly 52164184.

PearlJudea2000: Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

PisaturoRonald2009: “ Past Longevity as Evidence for the Future”. Philosophy of Science 7673100.

PriceHuw2007: “ Causal Perspectivalism”. In: HuwPrice and RichardCorry (eds.) Causation Physics and the Constitution of Reality: Russell’s Republic Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press250292.

SchulzMoritz2010: “ The Dynamics of Indexical Belief”. Erkenntnis 72337351.

SchwarzWolfgang2012: “ Changing Minds in a Changing World”. Philosophical Studies 159219239.

SchwarzWolfgang2015: “ Belief Update across Fission”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66659682.

SpirtesPeterGlymourClark and ScheinesRichard1993: Causation Prediction and Search. New York: Springer.

StalnakerRobert C.2008: Our Knowledge of the Internal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TitelbaumMichael G.2008: “ The Relevance of Self-locating Beliefs”. Philosophical Review 117555605.

TitelbaumMichael G.2013a: Quitting Certainties: A Bayesian Framework Modelling Degrees of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TitelbaumMichael G.2013b: “ Ten Reasons to Care about the Sleeping Beauty Problem”. Philosophy Compass 810031017.

VaidmanLev1998: “ On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many-worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12245261.

VilenkinAlexander1995: “ Predictions from Quantum Cosmology”. Physical Review Letters 74846849.

WallaceDavid2012: The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WeathersonBrian2005: “ Should We Respond to Evil with Indifference?”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70613635.

WilsonAlastair2014: “ Everettian Confirmation and Sleeping Beauty”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65573598.

2

 See however Olum (2002) for a defence of the sia against the presumptuous philosopher challenge and Bostrom and Ćirković (2003) for a (to my mind convincing) rebuttal. Leitgeb (2010) offers an illuminating alternative version of the Presumptuous Philosopher scenario that compares hypotheses which differ on the number of observers by virtue of differing on the temporal extent of the universe (more specifically on the number of expansion/contraction processes that the universe goes through).

3

 See for instance Bradley (2011) for good reasons not to abandon Bayesian conditionalisation in self-locating contexts.

9

 See Kierland and Monton (2005) for supporting considerations using two competing criteria of expected inaccuracy that the temporal and the fission versions might best be assessed differently and Wilson (2014) for support based on principled considerations about the relation between chance and rational credence. Some diachronic approaches (Meacham 2010 Schwarz 2012 2015) arrive at the conclusion that the temporal and fission versions require different treatments along entirely independent lines.

12

According to Vaidman 1998this is an instance of the more general basic (not further justifiable) Everettian principle that rational credences should be assigned in conformity with the Born weights conceived of as measures of existence. According to Wallace 2012 (Part ii in particular) in contrast decision-theoretic considerations can be used to provide deeper justifications of this use of the Born weights.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 8 8 7
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0