Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:01:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 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 06:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8"; logging-data="2202931"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SrGIwg0Y6FfrI88KYqXKH" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VJvBJH9rfuCNQ4nF1XSfxpI6Xdk= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5165 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? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer