Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

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.
You just don't seem to be able to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, which is why you have your problems.