I suspect that our beliefs are close enough to each other at this point that any perceived differences are as likely to be due to minor linguistic quibbles as to actual disagreement. Which is to say, I wouldn't have phrased it like you did (had I said it with that phrasing I would disagree) but I think that our maps are closer than our wording would suggest.
If anyone who does think they have a coherent definition for UCMA that does not involve persuasiveness (subject to the above taboos) wants to chime in I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I think the thread has reached its (happy) conclusion.
If anyone who does think they have a coherent definition for UCMA that does not involve persuasiveness (subject to the above taboos) wants to chime in I'd love to hear it.
I'll give it a shot: an argument is universally compelling if no mind both a) has reasons to reject it, and b) has coherent beliefs. This is to say that a mind can only believe that the argument is false by believing a contradiction.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.