Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe".
>
Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the universe is substance.
>

>
OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER.

>
And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of language true?
>

>
What makes the expression: "a frog" true?

>
I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true?
>
It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding one, or a box with a disection kit.
>

>

Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not show that there is nothing that makes it true?
>

>
Truth need not be known.

>
Then why do you insisit it must be provable?
>

If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression
of language X true then X is untrue.

>
Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe?
>

>
I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other
words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING
USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS.
>

>
And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly communicate.
>

 That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention?
IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION.
 I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback.
I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING.
 If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression
of language X true then X is untrue.
 

WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is not one "Universe" that is everything.
By your arguement, We can talk about Purple Fairy Dust Powered Unicorns existing and doing their magic, because they exist in some universe.
The problem with trying to include EVERYTHING in an unrestricted manner is that everythig in that manner is just inconsistant.
Of course, since it seems you never actually did much real study of logic, maybe just read the Cliff Notes version, you missed a lot of the important details that make you fundamentals break apart.
You CAN'T break down your ideas into more basic terms, as you have had to paraphrase the terms so you could understand, and lost the actual foundations to them.