Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:15:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4do86$3qbnd$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$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>
 <v4djtr$1tsdf$7@dont-email.me> <v4dl2i$3qbnc$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dlo1$22cmj$1@dont-email.me> <v4dmam$3qbnc$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dmuk$22cmj$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 03:15:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4dmuk$22cmj$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4878
Lines: 80

On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true?
>>>>
>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding 
>>>> one, or a box with a disection kit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable?
>>>>
>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression
>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>
>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other
>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING
>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS.
>>>
>>
>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly 
>> communicate.
>>
> 
> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention?
> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION.
> 
> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback.
> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING.
> 
> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression
> of language X true then X is untrue.
> 
> 

WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is not 
one "Universe" that is everything.

By your arguement, We can talk about Purple Fairy Dust Powered Unicorns 
existing and doing their magic, because they exist in some universe.

The problem with trying to include EVERYTHING in an unrestricted manner 
is that everythig in that manner is just inconsistant.

Of course, since it seems you never actually did much real study of 
logic, maybe just read the Cliff Notes version, you missed a lot of the 
important details that make you fundamentals break apart.

You CAN'T break down your ideas into more basic terms, as you have had 
to paraphrase the terms so you could understand, and lost the actual 
foundations to them.