Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:

*This has direct application to undecidable decision problems*
>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker. This
entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes expression X
true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.
>
X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
Now we have the means to unequivocally define truth-bearer. X is a
truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.
>
I have been working in this same area as a non-academician for a few
years. I have only focused on expressions of language that are {true on
the basis of their meaning}.
>

>
Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>
“This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>
Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
false. It can't be false because that makes
it true.
>
>

>
Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>
Note,

>
When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.

>
Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the "truth-makers" for the system.
>

 Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
proved to be incorrect.

So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect, just inconsistent.
Note, some Formal Logic system specifically DEFINE how to handle inconsistant statements (typically uses a non-binary logic system, which makes the term "inconsistant" somewhat of a poorly defined term).

 

>
*Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
  (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
   p = p   Law of identity

>
Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>
There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or both of the first two "laws".
>

 I personally construe those as nonsense.
True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
that I consider correct.
 

So, you admit that you logic system isn't the classical binary system, and thus not applicable for most classical logic based on binary logic, and that you mind is just unimaginative enough to handle broader systems of logic.
I guess you just admitted that your definiton of a "Foundation of Logic" has just defined yourself out of all the fields you want to talk about, since they do NOT have the logic value of "not a truth-bearer".