Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Ultimate Foundation of Truth

On 2/28/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:>>

Yes logic is broken when it does not require a truth-maker
for every truth. It is also broken when its idiomatic meaning
of the term "provable" diverges from the meaning of the term
truth-maker. That every truth must have a truth-maker is outside
the scope of what you understand.

>
But it does, it just you don't seem to understand what a truth makee is?
>
Where was a statement without a truth-maker used?
>

>
Logic remains clueless about the philosophical
notion of truth makers and truth bearers and this is
why logic gets these things incorrectly.
>

>
No, you remain clueless about the notion of Logic and its rules.
>

 Only because logic defines "True" in a way that goes against the
way that True really works is it impossible to define a truth
predicate in logic.

No, it doesn't

 The biggest mistake that logic makes is failing to understand
that an expression can only be true when it has a truth bearer.

No it doesn't, it just allows the truth bearer to be an infinite number of steps away from the statement.

 Wittgenstein understood this on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
 True(common) always requires provable(common) simply another
way of saying every truth requires a truth-maker.
 

Nope, just more people who don't understand what was said.
Big thing to note, as I understand that where that quote comes from, it was unpublished by Wittgenstein, and he may have not published it because he later figured out where he was wrong about it.
The fact that you argument keeps on needing to strawman what logic actually says, just proves that you are a liar.