Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:58:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 139 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e98c84ba8c24dba675dc413b0edf993a"; logging-data="3028827"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bQLx+xVeKqUoFnY/948SD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ia8xiCzx/EFaItdODqgwBUwIx68= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6709 On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> It is how truth itself generically works. >> If no physical or conceptual thing makes expression X true >> then expression X is not true. > > But truth needs a source, and the source can't just be the system. > The cat in your living room is the truthmaker for "there is a cat in my living room}. The definition of the ordered set of natural numbers is the truthmaker for 5 > 3. > ALL systems need either some "first truths" that are unmade in the > system, that all others derived from, or al; truths come from an > infinite (possible circular) chain of reasoning. > No actual circles are ever involved. (a) Expressions stipulated to be true: "cats are animals" (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a). > For a given system, those "first truths" might come from something > outside, like the maker of the formal system, but when you try to make > the system everything, you get stuck in the loop. > Never. >> >> Only expressions of language that are true can have a truthmaker >> and ALL expressions of language that are true must have some >> physical or conceptual thing that makes them true or they are not true. > > Nope, because "expressions of language" follow the same limitation. They > don't have any meaning without the first establishment of "first words" > whose definition can't be expressed from other previously defined words. > How may times do I have to tell you the exact same thing until you can remember it from one message to the next? (a) Expressions stipulated to be true: "cats are animals" (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a). >> >>> as you eventually get to a root idea that doesn't have a truthmaker, >>> not even a statement that makes it its own truth maker, as THAT >>> statement needs a truth make. >>> >> >> As I have told you hundreds of times the foundation of the truth >> of all expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} >> is a connection to their meaning. > > And it doesn't work, as the "first truths" can't have a "truthmaker". > The assignment of relations between arbitrary finite strings assigns semantic meaning to these otherwise meaningless finite strings. The construction of Human language proves this: cats are animals 猫是动物猫是动物 cats are animals >> >> How do we know that kittens are living things and not fifteen >> story office buildings? A stipulated set of connections between >> finite strings tells us so. > > > Right, and if you pull the thread, you will ultimately reach the first > truths of the system which have no truthmaker in the system. > The assignment of relations between arbitrary finite strings assigns semantic meaning to these otherwise meaningless finite strings. >> >>>> >>>> If of everything there is nothing that makes expression of language X >>>> true then X is untrue. >>>> >>>> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker. >>>> >>>> If neither X nor ~X has a truthmaker then X is not a truth-bearer. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So, what makes the truthmakers truthmakers, you need a more >>> fundamental truth maker, which take you to infinite depth. >>> >> >> The problem with all of the research in the field is that it is >> either too specific, too vague or ambiguous. When I expand the >> scope to every physical thing and every conceptual thing then >> if no thing makes an expression true it is determined to be untrue. > > No, you don't understand the reasearch. > You can only be a naysayer that makes assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning. > This is your problem, if you don't understand it, you assume it to be > wrong, instead of just over your head. > >> >> At least half of the experts in the field that seem to comprise >> the received view is that there are some truths that no thing >> makes them true and they are somehow true anyway. >> > > Because, that is a necessity, at least in one way of looking at it. > > To have your stipulated axiom set, you need something with the power to > stipulate them, and that ability can't come from the system. That is not the actual case M: This sentence has no truthmaker Milne argues that M is true and therefore is a truth without a truthmaker. No one is arguing that "cats are animals" has no truthmaker. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer