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 No number precedes zero

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Lemma Concerning Zero presupposes logicism's reduction of 'number' to extensions of concepts, which Russell's paradox showed to be formally inconsistent in Frege's original system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Basic Law V is invalid, the derivation of the Lemma Concerning Zero collapses, undermining the reductio before it reaches the contradiction in P4.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Meinongian ontology, non-existent or impossible objects can instantiate concepts, so a concept Q satisfied by a non-actual object c can coherently have zero actual instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Qc can hold for a non-existent object c while the number of Q remains zero, then P2 and P3 are simultaneously satisfiable, dissolving the intended contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Assume for reductio that some number n is such that Precedes(n, 0)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.By the definition of predecessor, there exists a concept Q and an object c such that Qc holds, 0 equals the number of Q, and n equals the number of objects satisfying Q that are not identical to c
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By the Lemma Concerning Zero, 0 equals the number of Q implies there is no x such that Qx
      ?

      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.