Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can there be a truth without a truthmaker?
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:10:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uuidqi$3spcu$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <uuhd1a$3amnv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 02:10:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4089246"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uuhd1a$3amnv$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 1939
Lines: 28

On 4/2/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> There is a great debate about whether an expression of language
> can be true without a truth maker.

Not in Standard Formal Logic.

In Standard Formal Logic, a statments truth arises solely from have a 
connection (possible infinite in length) via valid arguements to the 
truthmakes of the system.

> 
> Truthmaker Maximalism defended GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA
> https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

WHich isn't about Formal Systems, but just more generic philosophy.

> 
> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
> non-existent.
> 
> True and unprovable is self-contradictory once one understands
> how true really works the way that I and Wittgenstein do.
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
> 

Nope, because True allows for an INFINITE change of reasoning, while 
PROOF requires a finite chain to allow it to come into the domain of 
Knowledge, since we can not view an infinite chain of reason since we 
are finite beings.