Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker

On 7/25/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/24/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/24/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/24/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/24/24 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/24/2024 4:44 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

But obviously sometimes sentences are
decidable, and sometimes not. Since
this depends on "True" and "L".
>

>
But when we talk about "decidability" this is actually
only a misnomer for self-contradictory.

>
But it isn't, and you only think that because you don't understand it.
>

>

Actually modern logic does it much simpler,
you don't need to prescribe or explain what
a "True" and "L" does, in that you repeat
>

>
Tarski "proved" that True(L,x) cannot be consistently defined
because he was simply too stupid to know that the Liar Paradox
is not a truth bearer. Most of the greatest experts in this
field are still too stupid.

>
No, he PROVED that the grammer of the system allowed the formation of the sentence.
>
The "True" predicate doesn't need the expression to be a truth bearer, just and expression that fits the grammer of the language.
>

>
*That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say*
I can't imagine anyone with an IQ over 100 saying
that without a short-circuit in their brain.

>
WHy, that is the definition of it. Something you have CHOSEN not to learn, but instead LIED to yourself by using your "Zeroth Principles" of reading just a few things about it and then GUESSING (incorrectly) what it must mean. That just shows your self-imposed STUPIDITY of the subject.
>

 You are trying to get away with the ridiculously stupid assertion
that every syntactically correct expression is a semantically
correct declarative sentence.
Is the sentence: "What time is it?" true or false?

But that sentence isn't syntactically a stateement, but a question. Thus not even syntactically request it be assigned a truth value.
What is 3 + 4? doesn't have a truth value, because it is asking a question.
3 + 4 = 7 has a truth value, as does 2 + 3 = 6.
SO, YOU seem to have fallen off you subject.
You are just proving that you just don't understand the grammar of English, that you have been using all your life, why should be accept that you understand how Grammars work in Formal Systems, which you have shown you don't even understand what they are.

 

>
In other words there really is no such thing as true
because "a fish" is neither true nor false in English.

>
Right, so True(English< "a fish") would be just FALSE, which doesn't mean that "a fish" is false, just that it isn't true.
>

>
This is just like that episode of HBO Westworld where
Bernard couldn't see a door right in front of his face
because his brain has been programmed to not see that door.

>
Sounds more like what has happend to you, You just don't seem to understand the definition of the Truth Predicate that you are arguing about, SInce this was self-imposed, it just proves your stupidity due to having brainwashed yourself to be unable to see any actual facts that contradict the lies you have told yourself, which turned you into the ignorant pathological liar you are.
>

>
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/11/14/one-of-the-biggest-westworld-fan-theories-just-came-true/
>

>