Re: Gödel's Basic Logic Course at Notre Dame (Was: Analytic Truth-makers)

On 7/24/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/24/2024 3:33 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

But truth bearer has another meaning.
The more correct terminology is anyway
truth maker, you have to shift away the
>
focus from the formula and think it is
a truth bearer, this is anyway wrong,
since you have two additional parameters
your "True" and your language "L".
>
So all that we see here in expression such as:
>
[~] True(L, [~] A)
>
Is truth making, and not truth bearing.
In recent years truth making has received
some attention, there are interesting papers
concerning truth makers. And it has
>
even a SEP article:
>
Truthmakers
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
>
A world of truthmakers?
https://philipp.philosophie.ch/handouts/2005-5-5-truthmakers.pdf
>
olcott schrieb:
>

The key difference is that we no long use the misnomer
"undecidable" sentence and instead call it for what it
really is an expression that is not a truth bearer, or
proposition in L.

 A truth-bearer is any expression of language that can
be true or false. Self-contradictory expressions are not
truth bearers.
 

And thus you accept that Goldbach's conjecture is a truth-bearer, even if it can't be proven.
Which means your other definition of truth-bearers can't be correct, and you are just shown to be a liar.