A criterion that cannot distinguish ontological weight from mere quantificational convenience conflates the semantic role of variables with the metaphysical question of what genuinely exists.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Ontological: "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
Ontological weight(whether existential claims matter for what's really real): How seriously we should take a claim as telling us something genuinely exists in reality, rather than being just a convenient way of speaking.
Quantificational convenience(as used in logic and philosophy of language): When we use something in math or logic just because it's useful for our calculations, not because it actually exists.

Based on where you are in your exploration