There is a systematic and suggestive analogy between grounding and causation. In my view, this analogy is no coincidence. Grounding and causation are alike because grounding is a type of causation: metaphysical causation. In this paper I defend the identification of grounding with metaphysical causation, drawing on the causation literature to explore systematic connections between grounding and metaphysical dependence counterfactuals, and I outline a non-reductive counterfactual theory of grounding along interventionist lines.

A lot has been written on solutions to the semantic paradoxes, but very little on the topic of general theories of paradoxicality. The reason for this, we believe, is that it is not easy to disentangle a solution to the paradoxes from a specific conception of what those paradoxes consist in. This paper goes some way towards remedying this situation. We first address the question of what one should expect from an account of paradoxicality. We then present one conception of (...) paradoxicality that has been offered in the literature: the fixed-point conception. According to this conception, a statement is paradoxical if it cannot obtain a classical truth-value at any fixed-point model. In order to assess this proposal rigorously we provide a non-metalinguistic characterization of paradoxicality and we evaluate whether the resulting account satisfies a number of reasonable desiderata. (shrink)

The unwinding that Cook, 767–774 2004) proposed is a simple but powerful method of generating new paradoxes from known ones. This paper extends Cook’s unwinding to a larger class of paradoxes and studies further the basic properties of the unwinding. The unwinding we study is a procedure, by which when inputting a Boolean modal net together with a definable digraph, we get a set of sentences in which we have a ‘counterpart’ for each sentence of the Boolean modal net and (...) each point of the digraph. What is more, whenever a sentence of the Boolean modal net says another sentence is necessary, then the counterpart of the first sentence at a point correspondingly says the counterparts of the second one at all accessible points of that point are all true. The output of the procedure is called ‘the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a definable digraph’. We prove that the unwinding procedure preserves paradoxicality: a Boolean modal net is paradoxical on a definable digraph, iff the unwinding of it on this digraph is also paradoxical. Besides, the dependence digraph for the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a definable digraph is proved to be isomorphic to the unwinding of the dependence digraph for the Boolean modal net on the previous definable digraph. So the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a digraph is self-referential, iff the Boolean modal net is self-referential and the digraph is cyclic. Thus, on the one hand, the unwinding of any Boolean modal net on an acyclic digraph is non-self-referential. In particular, the unwinding of any Boolean modal net on \ is non-self-referential. On the other hand, if a Boolean modal net is paradoxical on a locally finite digraph, the unwinding of it on that digraph must be self-referential. Hence, starting from a Boolean modal paradox, the unwinding can output a non-self-referential paradox only if the digraph is not locally finite. (shrink)

Cook regards Sorenson’s so-called ‘the no-no paradox’ as only a kind of ‘meta-paradox’ or ‘quasi-paradox’ because the symmetry principle that Sorenson imposes on the paradox is meta-theoretic. He rebuilds this paradox at the object-language level by replacing the symmetry principle with some ‘background principles governing the truth predicate’. He thus argues that the no-no paradox is a ‘new type of paradox’ in that its paradoxicality depends on these principles. This paper shows that any theory is inconsistent with the T-schema instances (...) for the no-no sentences, plus the T-schema instance for a Curry sentence associated with the symmetry of the no-no sentences. It turns out that the no-no paradox still depends on the problematic instances of the T-schema in a way that the liar paradox does. What distinguishes the no-no paradox is the T-schema instance for the above Curry sentence, which encodes Sorensen’s symmetry principle at the object-language level. (shrink)

The concept of hypodox is dual to the concept of paradox. Whereas a paradox is incompatibly overdetermined, a hypodox is underdetermined. Indeed, many particular paradoxes have dual hypodoxes. So, naively the dual of Russell’s Paradox is whether the set of all sets that are members of themselves is self-membered. The dual of the Liar Paradox is the Truth-teller, and a hypodoxical dual of the Heterological paradox is whether ‘autological’ is autological. I provide some analysis of the duality and I search (...) for modal hypodoxes as duals to known paradoxes. I also try to continue this search further by mapping the relations between some paradoxes and hypodoxes in duality squares. This investigation increases the known extension of the concept of hypodox, and the duality relation between paradoxes and hypodoxes assists in finding some of these. (shrink)