Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/13/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
 

If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that does X then X cannot be done.

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

I understand them at a higher level of abstraction than you are
currently capable of and you have no correct reasoning to show
otherwise.
Most of the best experts in truth-maker theory make this same mistake
because they define their terms to have subtle incoherence that is
too abstract to be noticed by them.
*These definitions prove that every truth has a truthmaker*
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker?
The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true <is>
its truthmaker.
If of everything there is nothing that makes expression of language X
true then X is untrue.
X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
If neither X nor ~X has a truthmaker then X is not a truth-bearer.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer