Path: ...!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 22:37:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4b1l7$3nf9m$9@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>
 <v4auhn$3nf9m$1@i2pn2.org> <v4ava2$1apao$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:37:27 -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: <v4ava2$1apao$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3112
Lines: 55

On 6/11/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Every expression of language X that is
> {true on the basis of its meaning}
> algorithmically requires a possibly infinite sequence of
> finite string transformation rules from its meaning to X.

Unless it is just true as its nature.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of language"

And not all things are finite strings.

> 
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> That is more than nothing in the universe.
> 

but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker?

Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a truth-maker itself.