Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
To the extent that they define inconsistency they
are not truth-makers.

>
>
YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>
That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>
How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>

>
*Stopping at your first big mistake*
>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>
A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
truthmaker.
>

>
Which isn't a formal system.
>

>
A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
a formal system.
>

 So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems?
 

I never agreed to anything like that.
When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way:
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.
Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer