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 Game formalism likely implies mathematical utterances are unsinnig (nonsensical) rather than merely sinnlos (lacking sense)

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hilbert's formalism distinguishes between real (contentual) and ideal (formal) statements, not between meaningful and meaningless marks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ideal mathematical statements function analogously to Wittgenstein's sinnlos propositions: they lack direct empirical content but serve systematic, rule-governed roles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A statement can be sinnlos within a formal system while remaining syntactically well-formed and operationally significant, placing game formalism closer to sinnlos than unsinnig.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's unsinnig category applies to violations of logical grammar, not merely to statements lacking empirical reference or propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Game formalist symbols operate under explicit, consistent syntactic rules that constitute a species of grammar, satisfying the minimal condition for avoiding unsinnig status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Game formalism treats mathematical utterances as strings of meaningless marks
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wittgenstein distinguishes sinnlos (senseless, including tautologies and contradictions) from unsinnig (nonsensical)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strings of meaningless marks would fall into the unsinnig category rather than the sinnlos category
      ?

      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.