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 FBP's claim that all logically consistent mathematical structures exist does not automatically confer warrant on any particular human belief about which structures those are.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If mathematical structures exist timelessly and mind-independently, our successful predictions about them suggest reliable epistemic access to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.FBP grants that logical consistency is the only criterion for mathematical existence, making it circular to then doubt our warrant for consistent beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The explanatory power of specific mathematical structures in science provides independent warrant beyond FBP's ontological claims alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Existence of all consistent structures doesn't determine which humans can reliably identify them, given cognitive and epistemic limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Warrant requires justified true belief; FBP only guarantees ontological status, not epistemic justification for human mathematical claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Multiple consistent mathematical structures may be equally coherent, so existence doesn't disambiguate which one our theories correctly describe.
      ?

      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.