Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A naturalist who defers to mathematics as a science must acknowledge that mathematical practice itself demands cardinals beyond any fixed bound.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Mathematical practice can be conducted in finitist or predicativist frameworks without invoking large cardinals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Using large cardinals in proofs doesn't require belief in their existence—they may be merely useful formal devices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Naturalism requires only that mathematics be empirically adequate, not that all its theoretical posits are ontologically real.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mathematical practice regularly quantifies over arbitrarily large cardinals (e.g., in set theory, category theory, proof theory).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Naturalism commits us to accepting what our best scientific theories require; mathematics is indispensable to science.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
There is no principled bound where mathematical practice stops; each supposedly 'final' cardinal admits further constructions.
?
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.