Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

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?
And what if the thing is true in some other universe, but its converse is true in this one?

 

>
FOR THE SAME X
OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER.

>
>
So, how do we know about that?
>

 Try to show that "a frog" is true.
Did that take an infinite search?

Like I said above, it depends on the context.

 

proving non-existance is very hard.
>

 There are many unknowns.
 

Yes, and many things that are UNKNOWABLE.