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 An inference from 'violates finite intuitions' to 'cannot really exist' conflates psychological surprise with metaphysical impossibility.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Intuitions about possibility may track deep structural features of reality we grasp pre-reflectively rather than mere psychological comfort.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some seemingly possible things (intrinsic color properties, backward causation) resist intuitive acceptance across cultures, suggesting principled metaphysical limits.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim assumes a sharp division between psychology and metaphysics that may itself be unfounded—our deepest conceptual schemes may constitute reality's structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Metaphysical possibility depends on logical consistency, not on whether human minds find something intuitively comfortable or surprising.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many well-established entities (quantum superpositions, infinities, spacetime curvature) violate intuitions but clearly exist or are real.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intuitions evolved for medium-sized objects at ordinary scales, so their failure at extreme scales indicates cognitive limitation, not reality.
?
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.