Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works

On 6/11/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>
Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
of a formal system.
>

>
*This is the way that truth actually works*
*People are free to disagree and simply be wrong*

>
Nope, YOU are simply wrong, because you don't understand how big logic actualy is, because, it seems, your mind is to small.
>

 Every expression of language X that is
{true on the basis of its meaning}
algorithmically requires a possibly infinite sequence of
finite string transformation rules from its meaning to X.

Unless it is just true as its nature.

 

>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>

>
But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of language" in the sense you seem to be thinking of it.
>

 Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of language"

And not all things are finite strings.

 

This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes
expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.

>
Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition.
>

 That is more than nothing in the universe.
 

but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker?
Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a truth-maker itself.