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: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:01:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v4djtr$1tsdf$7@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>
 <v44toi$3egp9$13@i2pn2.org> <v44ujh$3m841$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4508h$3egpa$11@i2pn2.org> <v45pfb$3ph0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45q1d$3h641$7@i2pn2.org> <v45qvp$41qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v46na2$3ifov$2@i2pn2.org> <v478g9$hcgj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v48gh2$3kcoe$2@i2pn2.org> <v4a1jk$15ems$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4am8g$3n8ob$1@i2pn2.org> <v4aufn$1apao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4b1gd$3nf9m$8@i2pn2.org> <v4b2sa$1f89t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4b32m$3nf9m$10@i2pn2.org> <v4b45c$1f89t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4c12p$3oop0$2@i2pn2.org> <v4cfhu$1nhr0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4dc5j$3qbnc$5@i2pn2.org> <v4dfdo$1te0b$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4dg4v$3qbnd$3@i2pn2.org> <v4digg$1tsdf$4@dont-email.me>
 <v4djfe$3qbnd$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 04:01:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2027951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19enXbFD0T1tNbv5sIL1H9m"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q1eLDxmX+vjfq6hyh6jsVJQZ23M=
In-Reply-To: <v4djfe$3qbnd$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3257

On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but 
>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe".
>>>
>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the 
>>> universe is substance.
>>>
>>
>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER.
> 
> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of 
> language true?
> 

What makes the expression: "a frog" true?

> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not 
> show that there is nothing that makes it true?
> 

Truth need not be known.
If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression
of language X true then X is untrue.

>>
>> FOR THE SAME X
>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
>> OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER.
> 
> 
> So, how do we know about that?
> 

Try to show that "a frog" is true.
Did that take an infinite search?

> proving non-existance is very hard.
> 

There are many unknowns.

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