<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-17T19:28:53Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:www.recercat.cat:2445/219703" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://recercat.cat/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:recercat.cat:2445/219703</identifier><datestamp>2025-11-20T10:17:39Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_2072_1057</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_478820</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_478917</setSpec></header><metadata><oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
   <dc:title>A hyperintensional approach to positive epistemic possibility</dc:title>
   <dc:creator>Rossi, Niccolò</dc:creator>
   <dc:creator>Ogun, Aybuke</dc:creator>
   <dc:subject>Modalitat (Lògica)</dc:subject>
   <dc:subject>Possibilitat</dc:subject>
   <dc:subject>Semàntica (Filosofia)</dc:subject>
   <dc:subject>Modality (Logic)</dc:subject>
   <dc:subject>Possibility</dc:subject>
   <dc:subject>Semantics (Philosophy)</dc:subject>
   <dc:description>The received view says that possibility is the dual of necessity: a proposition is (meta-&#xd;
physically, logically, epistemically etc.) possible iff it is not the case that its negation&#xd;
is (metaphysically, logically, epistemically etc., respectively) necessary. This reading&#xd;
is usually taken for granted by modal logicians and indeed seems plausible when&#xd;
dealing with logical or metaphysical possibility. But what about epistemic possibil-&#xd;
ity? We argue that the dual definition of epistemic possibility in terms of epistemic&#xd;
necessity generates tension when reasoning about non-idealized agents and is a prob-&#xd;
lem of concern for most hyperintensional epistemic logics that alleviate the problem&#xd;
of logical omniscience. The tension is particularly evident when knowledge is taken&#xd;
as a primitive to define other epistemic concepts, such as justification and belief, as&#xd;
done in the knowledge-first tradition. We propose a non-dual interpretation of epis-&#xd;
temic possibility, employing a hyperintensionality filter similar to the one that makes&#xd;
the corresponding epistemic necessity operator hyperintensional. We employ the pro-&#xd;
posed semantics to model Stalnaker’s belief as epistemic possibility of knowledge&#xd;
and provide a sound and complete axiomatization for a hyperintensional version of&#xd;
his bimodal logic of knowledge and belief</dc:description>
   <dc:date>2025-03-13T20:34:16Z</dc:date>
   <dc:date>2025-03-13T20:34:16Z</dc:date>
   <dc:date>2023-07-26</dc:date>
   <dc:date>2025-03-13T20:34:16Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
   <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
   <dc:identifier>0039-7857</dc:identifier>
   <dc:identifier>https://hdl.handle.net/2445/219703</dc:identifier>
   <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
   <dc:relation> Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04219-x</dc:relation>
   <dc:relation>Synthese, 2023, vol. 202</dc:relation>
   <dc:relation>https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04219-x</dc:relation>
   <dc:rights>cc-by (c) Rossi, Niccolò et al., 2023</dc:rights>
   <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/</dc:rights>
   <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
   <dc:format>29 p.</dc:format>
   <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
   <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
   <dc:publisher>Springer Verlag</dc:publisher>
   <dc:source>Articles publicats en revistes (Filosofia)</dc:source>
</oai_dc:dc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>