Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the
 way truth really works
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:48:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4gb2c$3tn6r$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <v44o5t$3l9t2$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>
 <v4693h$8jv1$1@dont-email.me> <v473en$ggn5$3@dont-email.me>
 <v48vbe$us2b$1@dont-email.me> <v49sla$14ek5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4bhqr$1hqq1$1@dont-email.me> <v4c587$1lec5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4c8hm$1m8ib$1@dont-email.me> <v4ca5c$1mi5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cjau$1ob9b$1@dont-email.me> <v4ck7s$1o4b4$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4e2u8$24lla$1@dont-email.me> <v4eo87$28g4v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 02:48:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4119771"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4eo87$28g4v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7735
Lines: 146

On 6/13/24 8:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This has direct application to undecidable decision 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic answer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthmaker. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entails that if there is nothing in the universe that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes expression X
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we have the means to unequivocally define 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer. X is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been working in this same area as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-academician for a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. I have only focused on expressions of language 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are {true on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of their meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of its truth-makers, unless you let your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition become trivial for Formal logic where a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>>   (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>>>>    p = p   Law of identity
>>>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system 
>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. 
>>>>>>>>>> Besides, a the
>>>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the 
>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not 
>>>>>>>> limited by
>>>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a formal system says:
>>>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>>>
>>> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
>>> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
>>
>> Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
>>
> 
> When we define formal systems this way all ambiguity and vagueness is
> eliminated. This is best exemplified in formalized English.
> 
> When I say I am going to drive my {cat}. this could mean
> Transport(pet, veterinarian) operate(earth_moving_equipment).
> When each sense meaning of every term has its own GUID then we
> don't have to "interpret" what is mean this is fully specified.
> 

Yes, English (or Natural Langage in general) is a very bad basis to 
Formaliz a system on, as the word shave too many ambiquities in meaning. 
Which is why they tend to develop a very FORMAL (i.e. not Natural) 
Language to express themselves in.

Your problem is you never learned the formal meaning, so you keep on 
misinterpreting the words.