Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A formalist or deflationist (following Wittgenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics) can reject that 'true but unprovable' is coherent without a privileged intended model.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical statements exhibit determinate truth-values independently of proof systems; unprovability in PA doesn't make a statement indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting 'true but unprovable' conflates *recognizing* a statement's truth with *epistemically accessing* it—they are distinct notions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formalism cannot explain why different formal systems produce consistent, interlocking results unless mathematical truths constrain them externally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Truth without a model is metaphysically idle; calling something 'true' merely marks it as provable within a rule-governed system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gödel's incompleteness theorems show formal systems are incomplete, but this reflects the limits of *our chosen axioms*, not existence of mind-independent mathematical facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing unprovable truths requires a privileged model (Platonic realm), which violates parsimony and lacks empirical access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.