Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:09:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v478g9$hcgj$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>
 <v45q1d$3h641$7@i2pn2.org> <v45qvp$41qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v46na2$3ifov$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:09:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a";
	logging-data="569875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OsP+eIyBRdgNifiozDboa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uXXptFyMUjbFHHWIPomSP+BceFc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v46na2$3ifov$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6286

On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which isn't a formal system.
>>>
>>
>> A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
>> a formal system.
>>
> 
> So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems?
> 

I never agreed to anything like that.
When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way:

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.

Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer