Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:32:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v4esdh$28g4v$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4dqtt$2379j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4el9i$3rsd6$1@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 15:32:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2375839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vPongrC9SHbpy0OLv7oGa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A79KRRohKv3ey0lU/Tfa8pUW1wM=
In-Reply-To: <v4el9i$3rsd6$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6580

On 6/13/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/13/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> 
> No, there is a concept of "Everything" but it is not very usable as a 
> single unified object because parts of it are inconsistant with other 
> parts of it.
> 

If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that does X then X cannot be done.

> You just don't seem to be able to understand these sorts of abstract 
> concepts, which is why you have your problems.

I understand them at a higher level of abstraction than you are
currently capable of and you have no correct reasoning to show
otherwise.

Most of the best experts in truth-maker theory make this same mistake
because they define their terms to have subtle incoherence that is
too abstract to be noticed by them.

*These definitions prove that every truth has a truthmaker*

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

If of everything there is nothing that makes expression of language X
true then X is untrue.

X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.

If neither X nor ~X has a truthmaker then X is not a truth-bearer.


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