Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:58:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <v4hian$2sdqr$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4gas3$3tn6r$4@i2pn2.org> <v4gemo$2nim8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha61$3v16r$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:58:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e98c84ba8c24dba675dc413b0edf993a";
	logging-data="3028827"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bQLx+xVeKqUoFnY/948SD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ia8xiCzx/EFaItdODqgwBUwIx68=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4ha61$3v16r$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6709

On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/13/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:

>>
>> It is how truth itself generically works.
>> If no physical or conceptual thing makes expression X true
>> then expression X is not true.
> 
> But truth needs a source, and the source can't just be the system.
> 

The cat in your living room is the truthmaker for
"there is a cat in my living room}.

The definition of the ordered set of natural numbers
is the truthmaker for 5 > 3.

> ALL systems need either some "first truths" that are unmade in the 
> system, that all others derived from, or al; truths come from an 
> infinite (possible circular) chain of reasoning.
> 

No actual circles are ever involved.
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true: "cats are animals"
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a).

> For a given system, those "first truths" might come from something 
> outside, like the maker of the formal system, but when you try to make 
> the system everything, you get stuck in the loop.
> 

Never.

<snip>
>>
>> Only expressions of language that are true can have a truthmaker
>> and ALL expressions of language that are true must have some
>> physical or conceptual thing that makes them true or they are not true.
> 
> Nope, because "expressions of language" follow the same limitation. They 
> don't have any meaning without the first establishment of "first words" 
> whose definition can't be expressed from other previously defined words.
> 

How may times do I have to tell you the exact same thing
until you can remember it from one message to the next?

(a) Expressions stipulated to be true: "cats are animals"
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a).

>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> As I have told you hundreds of times the foundation of the truth
>> of all expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
>> is a connection to their meaning.
> 
> And it doesn't work, as the "first truths" can't have a "truthmaker".
> 

The assignment of relations between arbitrary finite
strings assigns semantic meaning to these otherwise
meaningless finite strings.

The construction of Human language proves this:
cats are animals <translated to> 猫是动物
猫是动物 <translated to> cats are animals

>>
>> How do we know that kittens are living things and not fifteen
>> story office buildings? A stipulated set of connections between
>> finite strings tells us so.
> 
> 
> Right, and if you pull the thread, you will ultimately reach the first 
> truths of the system which have no truthmaker in the system.
> 

The assignment of relations between arbitrary finite
strings assigns semantic meaning to these otherwise
meaningless finite strings.

>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The problem with all of the research in the field is that it is
>> either too specific, too vague or ambiguous. When I expand the
>> scope to every physical thing and every conceptual thing then
>> if no thing makes an expression true it is determined to be untrue.
> 
> No, you don't understand the reasearch.
> 

You can only be a naysayer that makes assertions
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.

> This is your problem, if you don't understand it, you assume it to be 
> wrong, instead of just over your head.
> 
>>
>> At least half of the experts in the field that seem to comprise
>> the received view is that there are some truths that no thing
>> makes them true and they are somehow true anyway.
>>
> 
> Because, that is a necessity, at least in one way of looking at it.
> 
> To have your stipulated axiom set, you need something with the power to 
> stipulate them, and that ability can't come from the system.

That is not the actual case

M: This sentence has no truthmaker
Milne argues that M is true and therefore is a truth without a truthmaker.

No one is arguing that "cats are animals" has no truthmaker.




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