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 23:51:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4dqb6$3qbnc$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@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> <v4do86$3qbnd$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v4docm$22o4a$1@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 03:51:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4docm$22o4a$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4700
Lines: 79

On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING*
> 

But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved about 
Naive Set Theory.

No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually tries 
to encompase EVERYTHING.