Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 20:16:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 202
Message-ID: <v4dh90$1tsdf$1@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> <v4c6e9$1lec5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4dch4$3qbnc$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 03:16:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2027951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MMjzc4SanKQvg8nSRu+vv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7UO5EoBf2c0BCtNktD5T0cOwOkU=
In-Reply-To: <v4dch4$3qbnc$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8137

On 6/12/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 

OK then you disagree that cats are animals.
As I have told you many hundreds of times DEFINITION
is the foundational basis of every expression that
is {true on the basis of its meaning.

>>
>> 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.
> 

DEFINITION is the foundational TRUTH-MAKER
for every expression that is
{true on the basis of its meaning.

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

What is it about a cat that makes it not
a fifteen story officen building?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
> 

The Cyc project has {thing} at its root.

>>
>>> 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?
> 

How do you know that a cat is not a fifteen story office building?

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

There are a set of relations that exist.
Their encoding in the various human languages is arbitrary.
That is the stipulated part.

>>
>> 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.
> 

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

When I say ALL THINGS you and most people in truthmaker theory
misinterpret EVERYTHING to mean a few things of a certain type.

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