Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the
 way truth really works
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:44:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4auhn$3nf9m$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>
 <v4693h$8jv1$1@dont-email.me> <v473en$ggn5$3@dont-email.me>
 <v48vbe$us2b$1@dont-email.me> <v49sla$14ek5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:44:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3915062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v49sla$14ek5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5770
Lines: 116

On 6/11/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>
>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>   (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>    p = p   Law of identity
>>> *No it cannot*
>>
>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>> of a formal system.
>>
> 
> *This is the way that truth actually works*
> *People are free to disagree and simply be wrong*

Nope, YOU are simply wrong, because you don't understand how big logic 
actualy is, because, it seems, your mind is to small.

> 
> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
> 

But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of language" 
in the sense you seem to be thinking of it.

> This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes
> expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.

Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition.

> 
> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
> Now we have the means to unequivocally define truthbearer. X is a
> truthbearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.
> 
> 
>>> People are free to stipulate the value of PI as exactly
>>> 3.0 and they are simply wrong.
>>
>> But they are free to use the small greek letter pi for other purposes.
>>
>