Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:09:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <v7ru37$1tp9a$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v7rohj$9t9k$2@solani.org> <v7rpra$1sv5t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v7rsko$9vkk$1@solani.org> <v7rtu5$1tp9a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:09:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43e64e6e679a39fe462151fef9da7f11";
	logging-data="2024746"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SL+i2UHqWkdlCWdS5b8GM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q8Vw50u7cxta3tMNQx24cnapn1o=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7rtu5$1tp9a$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5876

On 7/24/2024 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/24/2024 4:44 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>> But obviously sometimes sentences are
>> decidable, and sometimes not. Since
>> this depends on "True" and "L".
>>
> 
> But when we talk about "decidability" this is actually
> only a misnomer for self-contradictory.
> 
>> Actually modern logic does it much simpler,
>> you don't need to prescribe or explain what
>> a "True" and "L" does, in that you repeat
>>
> 
> Tarski "proved" that True(L,x) cannot be consistently defined
> because he was simply too stupid to know that the Liar Paradox
> is not a truth bearer. Most of the greatest experts in this
> field are still too stupid.
> 
>> nonsense like for example:
>>
>>  > A truth maker is any sequence of truth preserving operations
>>  > that links an expression x of language L to its semantic meaning
>>  > in language L. The lack of such a connection in L to x or ~x
>>  > means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
>>
>> Its much much easier to define a "logic".
>> You just take a language of sentences S.
>> And define a "logic" L as a subset of S.
>>
> 
> No we specify the whole foundation of every True(L,x)
> that includes logic then we can make concrete examples
> that are simple enough that ordinary people can understand
> the mathematical incompleteness is nonsense.
> 
> "A fish" can never be proven or refuted because it is
> not a declarative sentence.
> 
> "What time is it?" can never be proven or refuted
> because it is not a declarative sentence.
> 
> "This sentence is not true" can never be proven or
> refuted because it is not a semantically correct
> declarative sentence.
> 
> 
>> You can imagine that L was defined as follows:
>>
>> L := { A e S | True(L, A) }
>>
>> But this is not necessarely the case how L is
>> conceived, or how L comes into being.
>>
> 
> I have no idea what the Hell A e S means.
> If you mean A ∈ S then just say that.
> 
>> So a logic L is just a set of sentences. You
>> don't need the notion truth maker or truth bearer
>> at all, all you need to say you have some L ⊆ S.
>>
> 
> The foundation of analytic truth is a set of sentences
> that have been stipulated to have the semantic property
> of Boolean true. Care are animals even if physical reality
> never existed.
> 

Cats are animals even if physical reality never existed.

>> You can then study such L's. For example:
>> - classical logic
>> - intuitionistic logic
>> - etc..
>>
> 
> I don't go through all that convoluted mess.
> I start at the top of the hierarchy.
> 
> True(L,x) means x has been stipulated to be true or x
> is derived by applying truth preserving operations to
> stipulated truths.
> 
>> olcott schrieb:
>>> On 7/24/2024 3:34 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>> But truth bearer has another meaning.
>>>> The more correct terminology is anyway
>>>> truth maker, you have to shift away the
>>>>
>>>> focus from the formula and think it is
>>>> a truth bearer, this is anyway wrong,
>>>> since you have two additional parameters
>>>> your "True" and your language "L".
>>>>
>>>> So all that we see here in expression such as:
>>>>
>>>> [~] True(L, [~] A)
>>>>
>>>> Is truth making, and not truth bearing.
>>>> In recent years truth making has received
>>>> some attention, there are interesting papers
>>>> concerning truth makers. And it has
>>>>
>>>> even a SEP article:
>>>>
>>>> Truthmakers
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the received view has never gotten past Quine's
>>> nonsense rebuttal of the analytic synthetic distinction
>>> no other expert on truth-maker theory made much progress.
>>>
>>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>> conquers any of Quine's gibberish.
>>>
>>> A truth maker is any sequence of truth preserving operations
>>> that links an expression x of language L to its semantic meaning
>>> in language L. The lack of such a connection in L to x or ~x
>>> means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
>>>
>>>> A world of truthmakers?
>>>> https://philipp.philosophie.ch/handouts/2005-5-5-truthmakers.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> This seems at least reasonably plausible yet deals with things besides
>>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>>
>>>> olcott schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>  > The key difference is that we no long use the misnomer
>>>>  > "undecidable" sentence and instead call it for what it
>>>>  > really is an expression that is not a truth bearer, or
>>>>  > proposition in L.
>>>
>>
> 

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