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 Feasibility bounds are theory-relative and agent-relative, so 'infeasibly long' lacks the objective standing required for a logical property like consistency.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Consistency is a structural property of logical relations between propositions, independent of whether any agent can verify it—like mathematical truth itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Feasibility constraints concern our epistemic access to logical facts, not the facts themselves; confusing them conflates metaphysics with cognitive limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If consistency lacked objective standing due to feasibility bounds, no formal system could reliably be called consistent—a self-refuting consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical properties like consistency must transcend particular agents' computational limits, or they become mere psychological facts rather than objective truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proof that is infeasible for humans but feasible for superintelligences cannot ground consistency claims in the proof itself—only in the agent's capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Theory-relative feasibility means consistency depends on which framework we adopt, undermining its status as a mind-independent, objective logical property.
      ?

      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.