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: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:22:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4am8g$3n8ob$1@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>
 <v48gh2$3kcoe$2@i2pn2.org> <v4a1jk$15ems$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:22:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3908363"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4a1jk$15ems$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3108
Lines: 45

On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE*
> In other words you are saying that formal system have never
> existing in any way what-so-ever?

Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not understand 
the meaning of a universe.

When used with the definate article, a generic word like "universe" 
implies a reference to the singular instnace of it that closest fits the 
context, which would be our physical universe.

Formal Systems are not tied to our physical universe, but create their 
own universe based on the definitions embedded into them. That CAN 
create a tie to our universe, but doesn't need to.

So, all you did by that comment is expose your lack of understanding of 
things abstract.

> 
>> 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".
>