Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.theory > #109517

Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

This view of a logic is extremply powerful.
For example we can already define a property
of a logic. For example we could say a logic

L is consistent, if it doesn't explode, i.e.
if it doesn't prove anything, i.e. if there
exists a sentences with is not in the logic:

L consistent :<=> exists A (A e S & ~(A e L))

Or take page 18 of the BLACK BOOK by
Chagrov & Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic - 1997
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/modal-logic-9780198537793

L has disjunction property :<=>
    (A v B e L <=> A e L v B e L)

Theorem: Classical logic does not have disjunction property

Proof: Classical logic has LEM, i.e. p v ~p e L,
but it is neither the case p e L nor ~p e L.

Q.E.D.


Mild Shock schrieb:
> But obviously sometimes sentences are
> decidable, and sometimes not. Since
> this depends on "True" and "L".
> 
> Actually modern logic does it much simpler,
> you don't need to prescribe or explain what
> a "True" and "L" does, in that you repeat
> 
> nonsense like for example:
> 
>  > A truth maker is any sequence of truth preserving operations
>  > that links an expression x of language L to its semantic meaning
>  > in language L. The lack of such a connection in L to x or ~x
>  > means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
> 
> Its much much easier to define a "logic".
> You just take a language of sentences S.
> And define a "logic" L as a subset of S.
> 
> You can imagine that L was defined as follows:
> 
> L := { A e S | True(L, A) }
> 
> But this is not necessarely the case how L is
> conceived, or how L comes into being.
> 
> So a logic L is just a set of sentences. You
> don't need the notion truth maker or truth bearer
> at all, all you need to say you have some L ⊆ S.
> 
> You can then study such L's. For example:
> - classical logic
> - intuitionistic logic
> - etc..
> 
> olcott schrieb:
>> On 7/24/2024 3:34 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/
>>>
>>
>> Because the received view has never gotten past Quine's
>> nonsense rebuttal of the analytic synthetic distinction
>> no other expert on truth-maker theory made much progress.
>>
>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>> conquers any of Quine's gibberish.
>>
>> A truth maker is any sequence of truth preserving operations
>> that links an expression x of language L to its semantic meaning
>> in language L. The lack of such a connection in L to x or ~x
>> means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
>>
>>> A world of truthmakers?
>>> https://philipp.philosophie.ch/handouts/2005-5-5-truthmakers.pdf
>>>
>>
>> This seems at least reasonably plausible yet deals with things besides
>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-24 23:44 +0200
  Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-24 23:52 +0200
  Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 17:07 -0500
    Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 17:09 -0500
    Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-24 19:56 -0400
      Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 19:41 -0500
        Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-24 21:05 -0400
          Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 09:10 -0500
            Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-25 19:35 -0400
        Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-25 11:42 +0200
          Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-25 11:47 +0200
          Re: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 09:16 -0500
            What is your truth maker? (Ws: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-25 19:57 +0200
              Re: What is your truth maker? (Ws: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-25 20:05 +0200
                Re: What is your truth maker? (Ws: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 09:38 -0500
              Re: What is your truth maker? (Ws: Truth Bearer or Truth Maker) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 09:37 -0500

csiph-web