Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Internal categoricity proofs presuppose a metatheory in which 'all models' is itself interpreted, reintroducing the same semantic commitments.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A metatheory can treat 'all models' syntactically (proof-theoretically) without semantic commitment to any particular domain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reintroduction of commitments is not vicious if the metatheory's commitments are weaker or different in kind from the object theory's.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Internal categoricity succeeds if it establishes uniqueness up to isomorphism; semantic grounding of the metatheory is orthogonal to this result.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Quantifying over 'all models' requires fixing a domain; any domain choice imports semantic assumptions into the metatheory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Internal categoricity proofs cannot avoid mentioning models; mentioning models requires a language interpreted in some structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The regress problem: explaining 'all models' requires a metatheory; explaining that metatheory requires a meta-metatheory, ad infinitum.
?
How convincing is this?
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.