Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/13/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
*THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING*
>

>
But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved about Naive Set Theory.
>
No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually tries to encompase EVERYTHING.

>
So you disagree that there is an EVERYTHING.
IS THAT ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DISAGREE?
>

>
No, there is a concept of "Everything" but it is not very usable as a single unified object because parts of it are inconsistant with other parts of it.
>

 If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that does X then X cannot be done.

The problem is that the logic of "everything" can't do as much as the logic of a restricted set, if anything at all.
For example, in the mahematic of finite numbers (a+b)+c = a+(b+c).
When we add infintes to the mix, we loose that rule.
Thus, when you try to make a system include EVERYTHING, you lose a lot of the rules you want to use for the more normal cases.
This is one of the things that broke Naive Set Theory, by allowing a set to be anything, we lost all the rules to keep things organized.
Thus, trying to make a SINGLE UNIFIED logic of everything doesn't work, as the individual pieces of everything mignt be inconsistant with other pieces of that everything.

 

You just don't seem to be able to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, which is why you have your problems.

 I understand them at a higher level of abstraction than you are
currently capable of and you have no correct reasoning to show
otherwise.

I don't think so, or you would be able to start to break down you statement to things finer. You are stuck at just one level and can't move.

 Most of the best experts in truth-maker theory make this same mistake
because they define their terms to have subtle incoherence that is
too abstract to be noticed by them.
 *These definitions prove that every truth has a truthmaker*
 When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker?
The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true <is>
its truthmaker.

Except that not all things CAN have a truth maker as you eventually get to a root idea that doesn't have a truthmaker, not even a statement that makes it its own truth maker, as THAT statement needs a truth make.

 If of everything there is nothing that makes expression of language X
true then X is untrue.
 X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
 If neither X nor ~X has a truthmaker then X is not a truth-bearer.
 

So, what makes the truthmakers truthmakers, you need a more fundamental truth maker, which take you to infinite depth.