Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A probability axiom that forces such opinions is not a re... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Countable additivity is not a requirement of rationality

    A probability axiom that forces such opinions is not a requirement of rationality

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Countable additivity is not a requirement of rationalityIf an agent assigns 50% credence to the proposition that not all ravens ever obs...It is not a requirement of rationality that an agent must be opinionated about w...

    Similar

    Minimal rationality only requires that an agent make some valid infere...78%Dutch book arguments show that deviating from probability axioms leads...78%New Rational Reflection must assume that some things, such as conditio...77%Transitivity of preferences is a plausible rationality condition.76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: formal-belief
    View source passageHide passage
    Countable additivity is not as innocent as it looks: it rules out the possibility that any agent is indifferent over a countably infinite set of mutully exclusive possibilities. De Finetti (1970, 1972) famously argued that we ought to reject countable additivity since it is conceivable that God could pick out a natural number “at random” and with equal (zero) probability. For another example, suppose you assign 50% credence to the proposition \(\neg B\) that not all ravens that will ever be obse

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective