Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the
 way truth really works
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:05:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <v4c6e9$1lec5$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v4c12n$3oop0$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:05:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f170c39f5487c8533188545300f883a";
	logging-data="1751429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//sur9PbdBa36booNU/YxM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:81nIunS+Us5lrxrqn56Ai3zomn4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4c12n$3oop0$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6773

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

I have always had that and told you about it dozens of times.
Some otherwise meaningless finite strings are stipulated to be
true thus providing these finite strings with meaning.
https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
Bachelor(x) <entails> ~Married(x)

If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
of language X true then X is untrue.

This covers every truth that can possibly exist, true by
definition, true by entailment, true by observation, true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
If nothing makes X true then X is untrue.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, 

A tree of knowledge has no cycles. Willard Van Orman Quine
was too stupid to see this.
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

> as the expression of language that 
> expresses its meaning needs a truth-maker too, and that need one for it, 
> and so one.
> 

Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true
thus giving them meaning. Rudolf Carnap may have been
the first to formalize this with his meaning Postulates.

https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
Bachelor(x) <entails> ~Married(x)

> 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.

True by definition is their truthmaker.

> 
> 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.
> 

*That has already been covered by this*
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.

> 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.

Not at all. The problem is that you have not yet paid
100% complete attention to ALL of my words.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer