Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/9/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 11:36 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 <is> 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.

>
I guess you don't understand Formal Logic then.
>
If Formal logic, the logic system starts with an explicit listing of statements and definitions that are considered "True" and logical operations that are considered VALID.
>

>
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}.
>

>
Which seems to mean you have focused on general Philosophy, and NOT formal logic, which has a much broader definition of "truth", and thus room to argue it.

 When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
 

Except that such a foundation only applies to logics built on that foundation.
You don't get to tell others what foundations they have built there logic on.
All that does is get you kicked out of those logics, as your logic doesn't apply to them.