Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

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?
or do you agree that you reply was just Red Herring?

A formal system that defines inconsistant axioms, is still a formal system, and defines inconsistent axioms.
>

 Yes and it is wrong.

You don't get to say that a System is wrong just because it doesn't meet YOUR idea of what is correct.
You just have a God complex, which is going to put you into Gehenna.

 

It may well be a formal system DESIGNED to handle inconsistant statements, by using multi-valued logic.
>

 That is not the way that truth really works.
Did a person invent the value of PI or discover it?

Red Herring.
You just don't understand the concept, because it is beyond you.
That makes you just like the flat earthers or election deniers.

 I am not inventing the notion of truthmaker I am making this notion
more clear.

And trying to push it outside its domain.

 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.

But not all logic is about THIS "Universe", which seems to be a fundamental error on your part.
Thus the qualifier "The" is incorrect, as it implies singular.

 

It might be based on a limited form of logic that prevents the principle of explosion from happening, and thus even with some inconsistancies, it can be used to show some other useful results.
>
That doesn't make the system "not true".
>
YOu are just showing that you concept of logic is way too limited to be "the ultimate definition of logic".
>
>