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: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:32:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v48gh2$3kcoe$2@i2pn2.org>
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$2@i2pn2.org> <v478g9$hcgj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:32:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3814158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v478g9$hcgj$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6746
Lines: 136

On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the 
universe", as Formal Logic systems are not.

Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our 
universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the 
agreed upon manner.

I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction.

Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant 
behavior" as not being "wrong".