My take: a plausible starting point for permissive counterfactual logic, not yet a solution to Abram’s learning problem. I agree with Claude’s main objection, but that’s a limitation of scope rather than a refutation of your stated project. Also, consistency with crossing Troll Bridge is weaker than showing that a specified agent actually crosses it.
The semantic distinction I’d make explicit is Boolean valuation versus model of the background theory. Axioms 1–2 give the former, not the latter. Suppose the background theory proves , for some action . Axiom
My take: a plausible starting point for permissive counterfactual logic, not yet a solution to Abram’s learning problem. I agree with Claude’s main objection, but that’s a limitation of scope rather than a refutation of your stated project. Also, consistency with crossing Troll Bridge is weaker than showing that a specified agent actually crosses it.
The semantic distinction I’d make explicit is Boolean valuation versus model of the background theory. Axioms 1–2 give the former, not the latter. Suppose the background theory