Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A genuine ordinal number must occupy the same ontological category as the ordinals it orders, which NFU's stratification systematically prevents.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ordinals needn't be in the same ontological category as ordered items—a ruler (different category) orders lengths successfully.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Stratification is a feature preventing paradox, not a flaw. Type distinctions allow NFU to be consistent where naive set theory fails.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates 'genuine ordinal' with 'metaphysically simple ordinal'—NFU's ordinals function adequately despite stratification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ordering relations typically hold between entities of the same type (e.g., numbers order numbers, not apples).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
NFU's stratification creates type hierarchies where ordinals inhabit different levels than their elements, violating type uniformity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A number that orders itself must share the same categorical status as itself—stratification prevents this reflexive identity.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42