Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:32:50 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:32:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3814158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6746 Lines: 136 On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it >>>>>>>> says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily >>>>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they >>>>>>> are not truth-makers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect. >>>>>> >>>>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Stopping at your first big mistake* >>>>> >>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer >>>>> is whatever makes an expression of language true its truthmaker. >>>>> >>>>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the >>>>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus its >>>>> truthmaker. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which isn't a formal system. >>>> >>> >>> A cat in your living room a truthmaker and is not >>> a formal system. >>> >> >> So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems? >> > > I never agreed to anything like that. > When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way: > > When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is > whatever makes an expression of language true 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. > > Then it is self-evident that this the way that truth really works. > So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the agreed upon manner. I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction. Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant behavior" as not being "wrong".