Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:08:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v44r28$3egpa$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:08:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2092
Lines: 26

On 6/9/24 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> *This has direct application to undecidable decision problems*
> 
> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> 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.

I guess you don't understand Formal Logic then.

If Formal logic, the logic system starts with an explicit listing of 
statements and definitions that are considered "True" and logical 
operations that are considered VALID.

> 
> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
> Now we have the means to unequivocally define truth-bearer. X is a
> truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.
> 
> I have been working in this same area as a non-academician for a few
> years. I have only focused on expressions of language that are {true on
> the basis of their meaning}.
> 

Which seems to mean you have focused on general Philosophy, and NOT 
formal logic, which has a much broader definition of "truth", and thus 
room to argue it.