Calendar

In this talk I will defend a view according to which certain mathematical facts depend counterfactually on certain historical facts. Specifically, I will sketch an alternative possible history for us in which (I claim) the proposition ordinarily expressed by the English sentence “there is a universal set” is true, despite its falsity in the actual world.

Logic & Metaphysics Workshop

Feb 26 Martin Pleitz, Muenster
Mar 5 Vera Flocke, NYU
Mar 12 Roy Sorensen, WUSTL
Mar 19 Alex Citkin, Private Researcher
Mar 26 Chris Scambler, NYU
Apr 2 SPRING RECESS. NO MEETING
Apr 9 Greg Restall, Melbourne
Apr 16 Daniel Nolan, Notre Dame
Apr 23 Mel Fitting, CUNY
Apr 30 Sungil Han, Seoul National
May 7 Andreas Ditter, NYU
May14 Rohit Parikh

Randomized acts play a marginal role in traditional Bayesian decision theory, essentially only one of tie-breaking. Meanwhile, rationales for randomized decisions have been offered in a number of areas, including game theory, experimental design, and machine learning. A common and plausible way of accommodating some (but not all) of these ideas from a Bayesian perspective is by appeal to a decision maker’s bounded computational resources. Making this suggestion both precise and compelling is surprisingly difficult. We propose a distinction between interesting and uninteresting cases where randomization can help a decision maker, with the eventual aim of achieving a unified story about the rational role of randomization. The interesting cases, we claim, all arise from constraints on memory.

UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON LOGIC, PROBABILITY, AND GAMES
On the Rational Role of Randomization
Thomas Icard (Stanford)

It has been common in modernity to think of history as singular and universal, progressively moving forward to a particular end. Although few contemporary philosophers and historians maintain the view that there is strict universality and teleology in history, according to Professor Dmitri Nikulin in his most recent work, The Concept of History (Bloomsbury, 2017), the remnants of these positions still affect our understanding of history. In the account he gives, which he traces back to antiquity, Nikulin interrogates what we mean when we talk of history and the philosophical problems we get into by conceiving of it in certain ways. If we jettison the idea of an objective universal end to history, are we left in a morass of relativism? Can we embrace a view of history as an amalgam of genealogies and geographies while still doing justice to constituents of our accounts of history that seem to be historically invariant?

On Saturday, April 28th from 3:00-5:00pm, the Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal will host a roundtable discussion of Professor Nikulin’s latest book and the philosophy of history, more generally. Professor Nikulin (who is currently serving as Chair of the Philosophy Department, NSSR) will be joined for the roundtable discussion by Jeffrey Bernstein (Professor of Philosophy, College of the Holy Cross), and Massimiliano Tomba (Professor of History of Consciousness, University of California, Santa Cruz, and former Visiting Professor at the Department of Philosophy, NSSR).

Please join us for the roundtable event, which will take place in Room E206, 25 East 13th St. (“The Glass Corner”) on Saturday, April 28th, from 3:00pm-5:00pm. A reception with drinks and light refreshments will follow. During the reception, the GFPJ will also be selling recent books from their stacks along with copies of its most recent issue (38:2), which includes papers from the Hilary Putnam memorial conference held at The New School in 2016.

The Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal is a professional biannual journal of the history of philosophy with a distinguished tradition of publishing high-quality scholarly work. In our more than 45 years’ existence, we have published original essays by, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Judith Butler, Robert Pippin, Giorgio Agamben, Alphonso Lingis, and Julia Kristeva.

A standard way to challenge convergence-based accounts of inductive success is to claim that they are too weak to constrain inductive inferences in the short run. We respond to such a challenge by answering some questions raised by Juhl (1994). When it comes to predicting limiting relative frequencies in the framework of Reichenbach, we show that speed-optimal convergence—a long-run success condition—induces dynamic coherence in the short run. This is joint work with Eric Wofsey.

Michael Nielsen (Columbia University).
4:10 pm, Friday, November 16th, 2018
Faculty House, Columbia University

What does it mean that an event C “actually caused” event E? The problem of defining actual causation goes beyond mere philosophical speculation.  For example, in many legal arguments, it is precisely what needs to be established in order to determine responsibility.   (What exactly was the actual cause of the car accident or the medical problem?) The philosophy literature has been struggling with the problem of defining causality since the days of Hume, in the 1700s. Many of the definitions have been couched in terms of counterfactuals. (C is a cause of E if, had C not happened, then E would not have happened.) In 2001, Judea Pearl and I introduced a new definition of actual cause, using Pearl’s notion of structural equations to model counterfactuals.  The definition has been revised twice since then, extended to deal with notions like “responsibility” and “blame”, and applied in databases and program verification.  I survey the last 15 years of work here, including joint work with Judea Pearl, Hana Chockler, and Chris Hitchcock. The talk will be completely self-contained.

The seminar is concerned with applying formal methods to fundamental issues, with an emphasis on probabilistic reasoning, decision theory and games. In this context “logic” is broadly interpreted as covering applications that involve formal representations. The topics of interest have been researched within a very broad spectrum of different disciplines, including philosophy (logic and epistemology), statistics, economics, and computer science. The seminar is intended to bring together scholars from different fields of research so as to illuminate problems of common interest from different perspectives. Throughout each academic year, meetings are regularly presented by the members of the seminar and distinguished guest speakers.

details tba

02/08/2019 Faculty House, Columbia University
4:00 PM

03/22/2019 Faculty House, Columbia University
4:00 PM

04/19/2018 Faculty House, Columbia University
4:00 PM

There are two approaches to life. The first one, which we are identifying with Sir Karl Popper, is to think before we act and to let our hypotheses die in our stead when the overall outcome is likely to be negative. We act now for a better future, and we think now which action will bring the best future. Both decision theory and backward induction are technical versions of this train of thought.  The second approach, which we will identify with the Buddha, is to live in the present and not allow the future to pull us away from living in the ever present  Now. The Buddha’s approach is echoed in many others who came after him, Jelaluddin Rumi, Kahlil Gibran, and even perhaps Jesus.  It occurs in many contemporary teachers like Eckhart Tolle and Thich Nhat Hanh.  We may call Popper’s approach “futurism” and the Buddha’s approach “presentism.”

In this talk, we will discuss various aspects of the discourse on presentism and futurism. The purpose is to contrast one with the other. We will not attempt to side with one against the other, and instead leave it as a future project to find a prescriptive action-guiding choice between the two. We merely conjecture that a better optimal choice between these two positions may be somewhere in between. (This is joint work with Jongjin Kim.)