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
    If inconsistency is tolerated whenever its proof is compu... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The theory PA^F, though technically inconsistent, is practically consistent because any proof of a contradiction in PA^F must be infeasibly long.

    If inconsistency is tolerated whenever its proof is computationally infeasible, then the boundary of 'acceptable' contradiction shifts arbitrarily with technological progress.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Standards anchored to computational feasibility lack objective grounding, making 'acceptability' contingent on arbitrary hardware capabilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Today's unprovable contradictions become tomorrow's easily detectable ones, creating retroactive invalidation of reasoning we relied upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logic should be independent of engineering progress; tolerance based on technological limits conflates epistemology with practical constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All practical standards shift with capability—we tolerate approximation errors in physics despite technological advances without undermining validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim falsely assumes we *define* consistency by computational feasibility rather than *accepting* minor inconsistencies as pragmatically necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Boundaries naturally shift with knowledge; this reflects rational updating, not arbitrary erosion, comparable to medicine's changing disease definitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    All practical standards shift with capability—we tolerate approximation errors i...Boundaries naturally shift with knowledge; this reflects rational updating, not ...Logic should be independent of engineering progress; tolerance based on technolo...Standards anchored to computational feasibility lack objective grounding, making...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim falsely assumes we *define* consistency by computational feasibility r...The theory PA^F, though technically inconsistent, is practically consistent beca...Today's unprovable contradictions become tomorrow's easily detectable ones, crea...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit