Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:19:10 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <v469de$8n5s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <v44o5t$3l9t2$1@dont-email.me> <v44r29$3egpa$5@i2pn2.org> <v44rd0$3m841$2@dont-email.me> <v44sa5$3egpa$10@i2pn2.org> <v44suh$3m841$4@dont-email.me> <v44toi$3egp9$13@i2pn2.org> <v44ujh$3m841$6@dont-email.me> <v4508h$3egpa$11@i2pn2.org> <v45pfb$3ph0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:19:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e311fff3086b626806b3f1f2b05f967c";
	logging-data="285884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kaYb7y8uX3DPEokDS6BcX"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3NPbrgyU8LhZ1lX6QzPjJkGbDrY=
Bytes: 5016

On 2024-06-10 02:47:07 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its 
>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal 
>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the 
>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says FOR 
>>>> ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>> 
>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect, 
>>>> just inconsistent.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>> are not truth-makers.
>> 
>> 
>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>> 
>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>> 
>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>> 
> 
> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
> 
> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is 
> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
> 
> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
> truthmaker.

With that interpretation an inconsistent system is a truthmaker as it
makes the sentence "the system is inconsistent" true. And so is everything
else that one can mention so the word "truthmaker" does not really mean
anything.

-- 
Mikko