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 19:55:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4dch4$3qbnc$6@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>
 <v4c12n$3oop0$1@i2pn2.org> <v4c6e9$1lec5$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 23:55:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4c6e9$1lec5$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7516
Lines: 177

On 6/12/24 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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)

But that doesn't fit your defintion of a Truth having a truth maker.

> 
> 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.

So a "true by definition" or "stipulated truth" needs a truth maker.

What makes that definition or stuplation "true", what is its truth-maker?

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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

And then what is at is root? Show me a word that can be "defined" 
without using any other words.

> 
>> 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.

But what gives the meaning to the stipulation?

A stipulation is just a piece of language, what gives it meaning other 
than the words it uses, which need definitions.

> 
> 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.

Not by your definition.

> 
>>
>> 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.

But what them makes the truthmaker true? You said there were no cycles.

> 
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========