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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:17:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 76 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 05:17:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8"; logging-data="2187402"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184S8/9m+ipO8CLOf559WFz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:uNiB3HLADQJJmH/r2RwHjrYVJwM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4622 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* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer