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 Extensional adequacy, properly construed, already entails that a provability predicate captures the intended proof relation, making intensionality redundant.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Extensional adequacy on finite or standard models underdetermines behavior on non-standard models, where intensional structure becomes evidentially crucial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A predicate matching proof-theoretic output may still fail to respect proof-theoretic properties like constructivity or computational complexity differences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Understanding *why* something is provable (intensional content) serves explanatory purposes extensional adequacy alone cannot fulfill.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a provability predicate correctly identifies all and only provable sentences, it captures the proof relation's extensional identity regardless of mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intensional criteria (deriving from specific proof rules) add nothing beyond extensional adequacy if they yield identical outputs on all inputs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientific parsimony favors extensional criteria: we need not specify internal structure when behavioral equivalence is established and sufficient.
      ?

      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.