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 The correlation between concepts and extensions established by Basic Law V must be a function — no concept gets correlated with two distinct extensions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Basic Law V is inconsistent (Russell's paradox), so any functional property derived solely from it inherits this inconsistency and cannot be asserted as a genuine logical truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principle that entails contradiction does not establish a well-defined mapping; it establishes no mapping at all, making the claim vacuously grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On an intensional conception of concepts (Frege's own Begriffe), distinct concepts with identical extensions remain distinct objects, leaving the direction of correlation from concept to extension under-determined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If multiple co-extensive concepts are candidates for a single extension, the Va direction alone does not rule out a non-functional one-to-many correlation at the level of senses rather than references.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Basic Law V asserts (via its Va direction) that if the extensions of F and G differ (εF ≠ εG), then F ≠ G.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The material equivalence of F and G (∀x(Fx ≡ Gx)) is a necessary condition for F = G, meaning ¬∀x(Fx ≡ Gx) implies F ≠ G.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A mapping is a function if and only if no input is correlated with two distinct outputs.
      ?

      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.