Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works

On 6/11/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>
Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
of a formal system.
>

>
*This is the way that truth actually works*
*People are free to disagree and simply be wrong*

>
Nope, YOU are simply wrong, because you don't understand how big logic actualy is, because, it seems, your mind is to small.
>

>
Every expression of language X that is
{true on the basis of its meaning}
algorithmically requires a possibly infinite sequence of
finite string transformation rules from its meaning to X.

>
Unless it is just true as its nature.
>

 Which Mendelson would encode as: ⊢𝒞
A {cat} <is defined as a type of> {animal}.

So, what is that statements truth-maker?
And the truth-maker of that?
You need a set of "first truth-makers" that do not themselves have something more fundamental at their truth-makers.

 

>

>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>

>
But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of language" in the sense you seem to be thinking of it.
>

>
Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of language"

>
And not all things are finite strings.
>

 Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
is a finite string that is connected to the expressions of language that
express its meaning.

And that just gets you into circles, as the expression of language that expresses its meaning needs a truth-maker too, and that need one for it, and so one.
You need a primative base that is accepted without proof, as there is nothing to prove it, and that base defines the logic system you are going to work in.

 

>

This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes
expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.

>
Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition.
>

>
That is more than nothing in the universe.
>

>
but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker?
>
Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a truth-maker itself.

 Basic facts are stipulated to be true.
"A cat is an animal" is the same basic fact expressed
in every human language and their mathematically
formalized versions.
 

So, basic facts do not have a truth-maker in their universe.
But "A cat is an animal" is NOT a statement that is true in every system, as some systems might not HAVE a concept of "cat" in it at all, so that would be a non-sense expression, or might even define it to be something else.
YOu still keep on running into the problem that youu mind clearly doesn't understand that expresability of logic, and you are stuck just not understanding how abstractions work.