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
    Q is equivalent to SQML when contingent beings are ruled out — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Q is equivalent to SQML when contingent beings are ruled out

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    0 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Q is SQML minus its necessitism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessitism in SQML amounts to ruling out the prospect of contingent beings
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restoring the exclusion of contingent beings to Q recovers full SQML
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Necessitism in SQML amounts to ruling out the prospect of contingent beings

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Q is SQML minus its necessitism
    Restoring the exclusion of contingent beings to Q recovers full SQML

    Similar

    Necessitism in SQML amounts to ruling out the prospect of contingent b...89%Human beings are contingent beings85%Language is only meaningful when it describes contingent states of aff...84%Some free terms in Q might refer to contingent beings83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    The unprovability of \(\rS \tau\) in Q and, hence, more generally, Q’s inability to prove the existence of any necessary beings is the key difference between Q and SQML and, more specifically, it is what justifies the inapplicability of the full necessitation principle Nec to formulas containing free terms, since some of those terms might refer to contingent beings. This is, in particular, the key to blocking the controversial theorems of SQML, as their proofs all depend essentially on such an a
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (1 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit