Journal Article10.1093/MIND/FZU181
Time-Slice Rationality
TL;DR: Time-slice rationality as mentioned in this paper advocates that the locus of rationality is the time-slice rather than the temporally extended agent, motivated by consideration of puzzle cases for personal identity over time and a very moderate form of internalism about rationality.
read more
Abstract: I advocate Time-Slice Rationality, the thesis that the relationship between two time-slices of the same person is not importantly different, for purposes of rational evaluation, from the relationship between time-slices of distinct persons. The locus of rationality, so to speak, is the time-slice rather than the temporally extended agent. This claim is motivated by consideration of puzzle cases for personal identity over time and by a very moderate form of internalism about rationality. Time-Slice Rationality conflicts with two proposed principles of rationality, Conditionalization and Reflection. Conditionalization is a diachronic norm saying how your current degrees of belief should fit with your old ones, while Reflection is a norm enjoining you to defer to the degrees of belief that you expect to have in the future. But they are independently problematic and should be replaced by improved, time-slice-centric principles. Conditionalization should be replaced by a synchronic norm saying what degrees of belief you ought to have given your current evidence and Reflection should be replaced by a norm which instructs you to defer to the degrees of belief of agents you take to be experts. These replacement principles do all the work that the old principles were supposed to do while avoiding their problems. In this way, Time-Slice Rationality puts the theory of rationality on firmer foundations and yields better norms than alternative, non-time-slice-centric approaches.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
•Journal Article
Agreeing to disagree.
Polly S Nichols,Gerald R Winslow +1 more
Abstract: Two people, 1 and 2, are said to have common knowledge of an event E if both know it, 1 knows that 2 knows it, 2 knows that 1 knows it, 1 knows that 2 knows that 1 knows it, and so on.
1K
Logical Foundations of Probability
TL;DR: Logical Foundations of Probability By Rudolf Carnap Pp xvii + 607 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951) 42s net as mentioned in this paper
The logic of decision
Franco Taroni,Alex Biedermann,Silvia Bozza,Paolo Garbolino,Colin Aitken +4 more
- 18 Jul 2014
449
Reason Truth And History
Doreen Eichel
- 01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: The reason truth and history is universally compatible with any devices to read, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of the authors' books like this one.
219
Time-slice epistemology and action under indeterminacy
Sarah Moss
- 01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define time-slice epistemology as the combination of two claims: the first claim: what is rationally permissible or obligatory for a time slice is entirely determined by what mental states you are in at that time, and the second claim: the fundamental facts about rationality are exhausted by these temporally local facts.
References
•Book
Reason, truth, and history
Hilary Putnam
- 01 Jan 1981
TL;DR: Putnam as discussed by the authors deals with some of the most fundamental persistent problems in philosophy: the nature of truth, knowledge and rationality, and his aim is to break down the fixed categories of thought which have always appeared to define and constrain the permissible solutions to these problems.
4.1K
•Book
Fact, Fiction, and Forecast
Nelson Goodman
- 01 Jan 1955
TL;DR: Goodman's second book as mentioned in this paper is a reprint of the well-known paper, "The Prob lem of Counterfactual Conditionals", which he delivered at the University of London in 1953, is small in volume but rich in content.
3.7K
•Book
Knowledge and Its Limits
Timothy Williamson
- 01 Jan 2000
TL;DR: In this article, a state of mind is defined as broadness, broadness of the mind, prominentness, anti-lightness, and anti-reflectivity of a person.
2.8K
Agreeing to Disagree
TL;DR: Two people, 1 and 2, are said to have common knowledge of an event E if both know it, and 1 knows that 2 knows it, 2 knows that 1 knows It, and so on.