Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

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?

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

>
FOR THE SAME X
OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER.

  So, how do we know about that?
 

Try to show that "a frog" is true.
Did that take an infinite search?

proving non-existance is very hard.
 

There are many unknowns.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer