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 Claims about sets are claims about objects of a different kind from ordinary physical objects

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Set-talk can be systematically paraphrased as talk about concrete pluralities or mereological fusions, as Goodman and Quine demonstrated in 'Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If set-theoretic claims are fully translatable into claims about physical pluralities without ontological remainder, sets require no distinct object-kind beyond ordinary physical entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hellman's modal structuralism shows set-theoretic truths express possibilities about structural relations, not truths about independently existing abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If set claims are fundamentally modal rather than referential, the inference from 'infinitely many sets share one physical base' to 'sets are a distinct object-kind' conflates structural possibility with ontological category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There are infinitely many sets corresponding to any single physical object, as entailed by the principles of set theory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All of these infinitely many sets share the same physical base
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ordinary physical objects or bundles thereof cannot account for infinitely many distinct entities sharing a single physical base
      ?

      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.