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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:33:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4c12n$3oop0$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>
 <v4auhn$3nf9m$1@i2pn2.org> <v4ava2$1apao$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4b1l7$3nf9m$9@i2pn2.org> <v4b40r$1f89t$2@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 11:33:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3957536"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4b40r$1f89t$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4845
Lines: 100

On 6/11/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Which Mendelson would encode as: ⊢𝒞
> A {cat} <is defined as a type of> {animal}.

So, what is that statements truth-maker?

And the truth-maker of that?

You need a set of "first truth-makers" that do not themselves have 
something more fundamental at their truth-makers.
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
> is a finite string that is connected to the expressions of language that
> express its meaning.

And that just gets you into circles, as the expression of language that 
expresses its meaning needs a truth-maker too, and that need one for it, 
and so one.

You need a primative base that is accepted without proof, as there is 
nothing to prove it, and that base defines the logic system you are 
going to work in.

> 
>>>
>>>>> 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.
> 
> Basic facts are stipulated to be true.
> "A cat is an animal" is the same basic fact expressed
> in every human language and their mathematically
> formalized versions.
> 

So, basic facts do not have a truth-maker in their universe.

But "A cat is an animal" is NOT a statement that is true in every 
system, as some systems might not HAVE a concept of "cat" in it at all, 
so that would be a non-sense expression, or might even define it to be 
something else.

YOu still keep on running into the problem that youu mind clearly 
doesn't understand that expresability of logic, and you are stuck just 
not understanding how abstractions work.