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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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