Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:45:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4gas3$3tn6r$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@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>
 <v4esdh$28g4v$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 02:45:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4119771"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4esdh$28g4v$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7731
Lines: 153

On 6/13/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

The problem is that the logic of "everything" can't do as much as the 
logic of a restricted set, if anything at all.

For example, in the mahematic of finite numbers (a+b)+c = a+(b+c).

When we add infintes to the mix, we loose that rule.

Thus, when you try to make a system include EVERYTHING, you lose a lot 
of the rules you want to use for the more normal cases.

This is one of the things that broke Naive Set Theory, by allowing a set 
to be anything, we lost all the rules to keep things organized.

Thus, trying to make a SINGLE UNIFIED logic of everything doesn't work, 
as the individual pieces of everything mignt be inconsistant with other 
pieces of that everything.

> 
>> 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.

I don't think so, or you would be able to start to break down you 
statement to things finer. You are stuck at just one level and can't move.

> 
> 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.

Except that not all things CAN have a truth maker as you eventually get 
to a root idea that doesn't have a truthmaker, not even a statement that 
makes it its own truth maker, as THAT statement needs a truth make.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

So, what makes the truthmakers truthmakers, you need a more fundamental 
truth maker, which take you to infinite depth.