Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:32:33 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:32:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8"; logging-data="2375839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vPongrC9SHbpy0OLv7oGa" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:A79KRRohKv3ey0lU/Tfa8pUW1wM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6580 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. > 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. 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 its truthmaker. 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer