Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer