The claim presupposes a Platonist reading of complexity classes as describing intrinsic difficulty, whereas constructivists like Bridges and Richman argue complexity is relative to the formal system and proof methods available.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bridges and Richman(cited as examples of constructivist thinkers): Modern mathematicians and philosophers who advocate for constructivism and argue that mathematical difficulty depends on what proof methods and formal systems we're allowed to use.
Complexity classes(as used in computer science and philosophy of computation): In computer science, groups of problems sorted by how hard they are to solve—roughly, how much computing power and time they require.
Formal system(as used in logic and mathematics): A set of rules and symbols (like mathematical axioms) that you use to prove whether statements are true or false, similar to how a chess game has specific rules that determine what moves are legal.
Platonism(Ontology of mathematics): The position that abstract mathematical entities exist independently, supported here by the claim that our best scientific theories quantify over such entities.

Based on where you are in your exploration