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 Cardinality-based magnitude claims require a prior account of 'largeness' that is independent of the cardinal hierarchy being described.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
'Largeness' in mathematics is explicitly defined through cardinality (injections, bijections)—no prior account needed; definitions suffice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Requiring independent 'largeness' regresses infinitely: any prior account itself needs justification, making the claim self-defeating.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Cardinal comparisons work successfully without external intuitions, shown by consistent formal results in set theory and model theory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Cardinality alone (set size) cannot ground intuitions about magnitude without conceptual circularity—we need independent criteria for 'large.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical hierarchies (natural numbers, reals, cardinals) are formal structures that presuppose an intuitive notion of scale or excess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Comparing infinities requires a meta-framework about relative abundance that transcends purely enumerative definitions.
?
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.