Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems

On 6/9/24 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:

*This has direct application to undecidable decision problems*
>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker. This
entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes expression X
true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.

>
I guess you don't understand Formal Logic then.
>
If Formal logic, the logic system starts with an explicit listing of statements and definitions that are considered "True" and logical operations that are considered VALID.
>

>
X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
Now we have the means to unequivocally define truth-bearer. X is a
truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.
>
I have been working in this same area as a non-academician for a few
years. I have only focused on expressions of language that are {true on
the basis of their meaning}.
>

>
Which seems to mean you have focused on general Philosophy, and NOT formal logic, which has a much broader definition of "truth", and thus room to argue it.

>
When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>

>
Except that such a foundation only applies to logics built on that foundation.
>

 Clearly you do not comprehend the term:
The actual {ultimate foundation of all truth}.

And who says you are the power to define such a thing?

 Nonsense systems can be created where
2 + 3 = "I fell down and hurt my knee."

Sure.

 For the actual correct notion of an expression
of language with the property of {True} something
making it true is required or it is untrue.

Nope. Axioms are {true} just by themselves. Nothing makes them {true} except that they are defined to be true.
Truth-makers do not need Truth-Makers.

 We can stipulate a term-of-the-art where "True(x)"
means a bucket of rusted bolts sitting in our front
yard. That has no effect what-so-ever on actual {True}.
 

Unless that IS what a given formal logic system defines.
Unlikely, as not very useful, but possible.