David Lewis (1976) on Triviality: Reflections on the Triviality Theorem

In 1976, David Lewis proved that iIf we say that belief in a proposition  X -> Y is defined as the amount of credence in Y given X, so that:


P(X -> Y) = P(Y|X)


...what follows is that the likelihood that X -> Y cannot mean what we think it means.


Lewis showed that since the chance that Y given X is defined as P(Y|X) =  P( X & Y) / P(X), we have


P(X -> Y) = P(X & Y) / P(X).


Lewis showed, unfortunately, that this cannot fit our ideas of what tht likelihood X -> Y means, because he was able to derive


P( X -> Y ) = P(Y) from the above.


Interestingly, we can also use this theorem to derive the following:


If P( X -> Y) = P(Y)       by Lewis’ theorem


then P(X->Y) P(X) = P(Y) P(X).


but P(X->Y) P(X) = P(Y|X) (P(X) = ( P(X & Y) / P(X) ) P(X) by substitution of the above, so


P(X->Y) P(X) = P(X)P(Y) = P(X & Y)


So Lewis’s theorem implies that


P( Y & X ) = P(X)P(Y).


This is interesting, since it implies that


(1) P(X -> Y) = P(Y|X), iff P( X & Y) = P(X)P(Y).


But if we look at the mathematics of probability,  (1) is true only if X and y are fully independent variables. This suggests that the problem with defining P(X->Y) as P(Y|X) is that it fails to capture the causal dependence of Y on X that we often expect in the real world when we say that A implies B. If fact, such causal dependence is EXCLUDED by the above.

So the probability that X -> Y cannot in general possibly resemble “the probability of Y given X” unless X and Y are NOT causally associated.

In other words, P( X -> Y ) can be properly expressed by P(Y|X) iff X and Y are causally unrelated.

------------------------------------------------

Reference:
  • Lewis, D. (1976) “Probability of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities”, Philosophical Review, 85: 297-315; reprinted in Harper et al. (eds.) (1981) Ifs, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.


No comments:

Post a Comment

A new color to be seen

Where is the color of what we see? Is it part of the object we see? Is it in the light from that object? Is it in our eyes, our retinas? O...