Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/13/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 6/13/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:

>
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.

>
The problem is that the logic of "everything" can't do as much as the logic of a restricted set, if anything at all.
>

 It is how truth itself generically works.
If no physical or conceptual thing makes expression X true
then expression X is not true.

But truth needs a source, and the source can't just be the system.
ALL systems need either some "first truths" that are unmade in the system, that all others derived from, or al; truths come from an infinite (possible circular) chain of reasoning.
For a given system, those "first truths" might come from something outside, like the maker of the formal system, but when you try to make the system everything, you get stuck in the loop.

 

For example, in the mahematic of finite numbers (a+b)+c = a+(b+c).
>
When we add infintes to the mix, we loose that rule.
>
Thus, when you try to make a system include EVERYTHING, you lose a lot of the rules you want to use for the more normal cases.
>
This is one of the things that broke Naive Set Theory, by allowing a set to be anything, we lost all the rules to keep things organized.
>
Thus, trying to make a SINGLE UNIFIED logic of everything doesn't work, as the individual pieces of everything mignt be inconsistant with other pieces of that everything.
>

>

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.

>
I don't think so, or you would be able to start to break down you statement to things finer. You are stuck at just one level and can't move.
>

>
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.

>
Except that not all things CAN have a truth maker

 Only expressions of language that are true can have a truthmaker
and ALL expressions of language that are true must have some
physical or conceptual thing that makes them true or they are not true.

Nope, because "expressions of language" follow the same limitation. They don't have any meaning without the first establishment of "first words" whose definition can't be expressed from other previously defined words.

 

as you eventually get to a root idea that doesn't have a truthmaker, not even a statement that makes it its own truth maker, as THAT statement needs a truth make.
>

 As I have told you hundreds of times the foundation of the truth
of all expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
is a connection to their meaning.

And it doesn't work, as the "first truths" can't have a "truthmaker".

 How do we know that kittens are living things and not fifteen
story office buildings? A stipulated set of connections between
finite strings tells us so.

Right, and if you pull the thread, you will ultimately reach the first truths of the system which have no truthmaker in the system.

 

>
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.
>
>

>
So, what makes the truthmakers truthmakers, you need a more fundamental truth maker, which take you to infinite depth.
>

 The problem with all of the research in the field is that it is
either too specific, too vague or ambiguous. When I expand the
scope to every physical thing and every conceptual thing then
if no thing makes an expression true it is determined to be untrue.

No, you don't understand the reasearch.
This is your problem, if you don't understand it, you assume it to be wrong, instead of just over your head.

 At least half of the experts in the field that seem to comprise
the received view is that there are some truths that no thing
makes them true and they are somehow true anyway.
 

Because, that is a necessity, at least in one way of looking at it.
To have your stipulated axiom set, you need something with the power to stipulate them, and that ability can't come from the system.