Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:05:13 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 150 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:05:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f170c39f5487c8533188545300f883a"; logging-data="1751429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//sur9PbdBa36booNU/YxM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:81nIunS+Us5lrxrqn56Ai3zomn4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6773 On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system >>>>>>> specifies >>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. >>>>>>> Besides, a the >>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the >>>>>>> specification >>>>>>> of a formal system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works* >>>>>> *People are free to disagree and simply be wrong* >>>>> >>>>> Nope, YOU are simply wrong, because you don't understand how big >>>>> logic actualy is, because, it seems, your mind is to small. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Every expression of language X that is >>>> {true on the basis of its meaning} >>>> algorithmically requires a possibly infinite sequence of >>>> finite string transformation rules from its meaning to X. >>> >>> Unless it is just true as its nature. >>> >> >> Which Mendelson would encode as: ⊢𝒞 >> A {cat} {animal}. > > So, what is that statements truth-maker? > > And the truth-maker of that? > > You need a set of "first truth-makers" that do not themselves have > something more fundamental at their truth-makers. I have always had that and told you about it dozens of times. Some otherwise meaningless finite strings are stipulated to be true thus providing these finite strings with meaning. https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf Bachelor(x) ~Married(x) If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression of language X true then X is untrue. This covers every truth that can possibly exist, true by definition, true by entailment, true by observation, true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations. If nothing makes X true then X is untrue. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is >>>>>> whatever makes an expression of language true its truthmaker. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of >>>>> language" in the sense you seem to be thinking of it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of language" >>> >>> And not all things are finite strings. >>> >> >> Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning} >> is a finite string that is connected to the expressions of language that >> express its meaning. > > And that just gets you into circles, A tree of knowledge has no cycles. Willard Van Orman Quine was too stupid to see this. https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html > as the expression of language that > expresses its meaning needs a truth-maker too, and that need one for it, > and so one. > Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true thus giving them meaning. Rudolf Carnap may have been the first to formalize this with his meaning Postulates. https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf Bachelor(x) ~Married(x) > You need a primative base that is accepted without proof, as there is > nothing to prove it, and that base defines the logic system you are > going to work in. > >> >>>> >>>>>> This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes >>>>>> expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue. >>>>> >>>>> Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is more than nothing in the universe. >>>> >>> >>> but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker? >>> >>> Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a truth-maker >>> itself. >> >> Basic facts are stipulated to be true. >> "A cat is an animal" is the same basic fact expressed >> in every human language and their mathematically >> formalized versions. >> > > So, basic facts do not have a truth-maker in their universe. True by definition is their truthmaker. > > But "A cat is an animal" is NOT a statement that is true in every > system, as some systems might not HAVE a concept of "cat" in it at all, > so that would be a non-sense expression, or might even define it to be > something else. > *That has already been covered by this* When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true its truthmaker. This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue. > YOu still keep on running into the problem that youu mind clearly > doesn't understand that expresability of logic, and you are stuck just > not understanding how abstractions work. Not at all. The problem is that you have not yet paid 100% complete attention to ALL of my words. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer