Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:51:02 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) 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 03:51:02 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4700 Lines: 79 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.