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 23:01:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v4dqtt$2379j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4dqb6$3qbnc$14@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 06:01:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2202931"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SrGIwg0Y6FfrI88KYqXKH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VJvBJH9rfuCNQ4nF1XSfxpI6Xdk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4dqb6$3qbnc$14@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5165

On 6/12/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

So you disagree that there is an EVERYTHING.
IS THAT ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DISAGREE?

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