Michael G. Titelbaum

The Principal Principle Does Not Imply the Principle of Indifference, Because Conditioning on Biconditionals is Counterintuitive

Roger White ([2010]) argued for a principle of indifference. Hart and Titelbaum ([2015]) showed that White’s argument relied on an intuition about conditioning on biconditionals that, while widely shared, is incorrect. Hawthorne, Landes, Wallmann, and Williamson ([2017]) argue for a principle of indifference. Remarkably, their argument relies on the same faulty intuition. We explain their intuition, explain why it’s faulty, and show how it generates their principle of indifference. 1. Introduction2. El Caminos and Indifference 2.1. Overview2.2. Fins and antennas2.3. HLWW in the example2.4. The restrictiveness of Condition 22.5. Summary3. The Specifics of HLWW s Argument 3.1. Mapping their conditions to our equations3.2. HLWW’s responses to objections Introduction El Caminos and Indifference 2.1. Overview2.2. Fins and antennas2.3. HLWW in the example2.4. The restrictiveness of Condition 22.5. Summary Overview Fins and antennas HLWW in the example The restrictiveness of Condition 2 Summary The Specifics of HLWW s Argument 3.1. Mapping their conditions to our equations3.2. HLWW’s responses to objections Mapping their conditions to our equations HLWW’s responses to objections