Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 14:57:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v44tv1$3egp9$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <v44r28$3egpa$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v44r6c$3m841$1@dont-email.me> <v44sdg$3egp9$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v44tdv$3m841$5@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 18:57:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v44tdv$3m841$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3599
Lines: 73

On 6/9/24 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 1:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>
>>
>> Except that such a foundation only applies to logics built on that 
>> foundation.
>>
> 
> Clearly you do not comprehend the term:
> The actual {ultimate foundation of all truth}.

And who says you are the power to define such a thing?

> 
> Nonsense systems can be created where
> 2 + 3 = "I fell down and hurt my knee."

Sure.

> 
> For the actual correct notion of an expression
> of language with the property of {True} something
> making it true is required or it is untrue.

Nope. Axioms are {true} just by themselves. Nothing makes them {true} 
except that they are defined to be true.

Truth-makers do not need Truth-Makers.

> 
> We can stipulate a term-of-the-art where "True(x)"
> means a bucket of rusted bolts sitting in our front
> yard. That has no effect what-so-ever on actual {True}.
> 

Unless that IS what a given formal logic system defines.

Unlikely, as not very useful, but possible.