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 meaning of a formula (the proposition expressed) does not represent a reality distinct from the linguistic system in which the formula occurs

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's context principle distinguishes sense (Sinn) from reference (Bedeutung), where sense is objective but not reducible to any formal system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The sense of a mathematical formula can remain constant across mutually untranslatable formal systems, indicating sense transcends any particular linguistic encoding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If meaning were exhausted by position within a formal system, co-referential terms in different systems could never be recognized as such, yet mathematicians routinely identify them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate that arithmetical truth outruns provability in any consistent formal system, as shown by the truth of the Gödel sentence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the proposition expressed by a formula were constituted entirely by its role within a formal system, no proposition could be true yet unprovable within that system—contradicting Gödel's result.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Curry-Howard correspondence maps proofs to types within a system, but cannot account for truths that resist formalization within that system, leaving extra-systemic mathematical reality intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Curry-Howard correspondence allows rephrasing the intuitionist position as: the proposition expressed by a formula of Heyting Arithmetic is the type of its proofs
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The notion of 'type' here derives from lambda-calculus, not a straightforward synonym for 'set' or 'species'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lambda-calculus is a formal system with rich interconnections with programming and computer science, with readings in which instances of types are purely syntactic, proof-theoretic entities
      ?

      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.