Sujet : Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theoryDate : 13. Jun 2024, 05:01:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4dqtt$2379j$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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?
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems