 Papineau’s account of belief content, which is adapted from the ‘success semantics’ of Frank Ramsey (1927) and J.T. Whyte (1990), also faces some problems. The first problem is that none of the actions we ordinarily perform are based on a single belief. If I go to the fridge to look for food, my action is not only based on the belief that there is food in the fridge, but also on my belief about the location of the fridge in my apartment, about my own current position, about my physical abilities, and so on. Papineau (1993, 73) recognizes this problem and proposes the following solution: his initial formula should be applied to sets of beliefs on which actions are based, and the truth-conditions of a single belief should then be identified by comparing the collective truth-conditions of different sets which contain that belief as a member. Even if this solution works, however, a second problem remains: the truth of all the beliefs on which my action is based still does not guarantee that my action will be successful, not only because (for all we know) the laws governing our universe are indeterministic, but also because my success requires that a number of background conditions hold (conditions involving gravity, the concentration of oxygen, etc.), about which I may have no beliefs at all (Perry 1993). This suggests that Papineau’s account of belief content must be modified further, but it is unclear how this should be done (for two different proposals, cf. Blackburn 2005 and Nanay 2013).