Without cross-model convergence, the inductive evidence for CET is merely historical contingency about which algorithms humans have discovered, not a principled basis for a thesis about computational feasibility.

?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.

CET(as used in philosophy of computation): An abbreviation for a specific philosophical thesis about computation (likely 'Computational Feasibility Thesis' or similar), but the exact meaning would depend on the source text.
Inductive evidence(describes how non-criterial evidence works): Evidence that builds up a probable case for something without proving it beyond doubt—like noticing it rained every time you wore a blue shirt, so you start thinking the shirt might cause rain.
computational feasibility(as used in philosophy of computation): Whether a problem can actually be solved by a computer within a reasonable amount of time and resources.
cross-model convergence(as used in philosophy of computation): When different approaches or systems all point to the same conclusion or answer, suggesting that conclusion is probably correct rather than just lucky.

Based on where you are in your exploration