In the present paper we confront Martin- Löf’s analysis of the axiom of choice with J. Hintikka’s standing on this axiom. Hintikka claims that his game theoretical semantics for Independence Friendly Logic justifies Zermelo’s axiom of choice in a first-order way perfectly acceptable for the constructivists. In fact, Martin- Löf’s results lead to the following considerations:Hintikka preferred version of the axiom of choice is indeed acceptable for the constructivists and its meaning does not involve higher order logic.However, the version acceptable (...) for constructivists is based on an intensional take on functions. Extensionality is the heart of the classical understanding of Zermelo’s axiom and this is the real reason behind the constructivist rejection of it.More generally, dependence and independence features that motivate IF-Logic, can be formulated within the frame of constructive type theory without paying the price of a system that is neither axiomatizable nor has an underlying theory of inference – logic is about inference after all.We conclude pointing out that recent developments in dialogical logic show that the CTT approach to meaning in general and to the axiom of choice in particular is very natural to game theoretical approaches where metalogical features are explicitly displayed at the object language-level. Thus, in some way, this vindicates, albeit in quite of a different manner, Hintikka’s plea for the fruitfulness of game-theoretical semantics in the context of the foundations of mathematics. (shrink)

Jaakko Hintikka has argued that ordinary first-order logic should be replaced byindependence-friendly first-order logic, where essentially branching quantificationcan be represented. One recurring criticism of Hintikka has been that Hintikka'ssupposedly new logic is equivalent to a system of second-order logic, and henceis neither novel nor first-order. A standard reply to this criticism by Hintikka andhis defenders has been to show that given game-theoretic semantics, Hintikka'sbranching quantifiers receive the exact same treatment as the regular first-orderones. We develop a different reply, based around (...) considerations concerning thenature of logic. In particular, we argue that Hintikka's logic is the logic that bestrepresents the language fragment standard first-order logic is meantto represent. Therefore it earns its keep, and is also properly regarded as first-order. (shrink)

In this talk I present the main results from Anta (2021), namely, that the theoretical division between Boltzmannian and Gibbsian statistical mechanics should be understood as a separation in the epistemic capabilities of this physical discipline. In particular, while from the Boltzmannian framework one can generate powerful explanations of thermal processes by appealing to their microdynamics, from the Gibbsian framework one can predict observable values in a computationally effective way. Finally, I argue that this statistical mechanical schism contradicts the Hempelian (...) (1958) thesis that the predictive power of a scientific theory is directly proportional to its explanatory potential, and vice versa. (shrink)

Inferentialism is the conviction that to be meaningful in the distinctively human way, or to have a 'conceptual content', is to be governed by a certain kind of inferential rules. The term was coined by Robert Brandom as a label for his theory of language; however, it is also naturally applicable (and is growing increasingly common) within the philosophy of logic.