Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore, Euclidean geometry expresses contingent structural assumptions about space, not necessary truths.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Euclidean geometry may express necessary truths about the structure of possible space itself, not just empirical space.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Non-Euclidean systems describe different structural *possibilities*, but don't prove Euclidean assumptions are merely contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Non-Euclidean geometries are mathematically consistent, showing Euclidean axioms aren't logically necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
General relativity describes spacetime as non-Euclidean, suggesting physical space doesn't require Euclidean structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We could coherently imagine or construct spaces following different axioms, indicating Euclidean geometry is contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
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.