Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:

>
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.
>

>
So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the universe", as Formal Logic systems are not.
>

 *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE*
In other words you are saying that formal system have never
existing in any way what-so-ever?

Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not understand the meaning of a universe.
When used with the definate article, a generic word like "universe" implies a reference to the singular instnace of it that closest fits the context, which would be our physical universe.
Formal Systems are not tied to our physical universe, but create their own universe based on the definitions embedded into them. That CAN create a tie to our universe, but doesn't need to.
So, all you did by that comment is expose your lack of understanding of things abstract.

 

Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the agreed upon manner.
>
I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction.
>
Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant behavior" as not being "wrong".