Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 10:36 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-09 14:57 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 10:36 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 12:18 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:13 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:29 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:54 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 15:36 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:47 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:56 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:12 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 11:09 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:30 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 20:43 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 21:58 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 23:01 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:20 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 10:40 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:49 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:44 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:57 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:53 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:01 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:21 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:32 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:42 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:53 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:15 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:17 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:51 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:01 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:30 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:32 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:45 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:50 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:58 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:19 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:52 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:57 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:00 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:13 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:43 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:45 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 11:06 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 20:57 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:37 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:17 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 08:05 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:55 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:16 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 10:13 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 07:44 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 16:41 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 09:08 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 19:45 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 12:00 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-13 09:17 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:21 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-13 18:40 +0300
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 11:17 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:48 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:40 +0000
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 12:52 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:10 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:31 -0400
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:48 -0500
Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:57 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4dj4u$3qbnd$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107013 |
On 6/12/24 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which Mendelson would encode as: ⊢𝒞
>>>>> A {cat} <is defined as a type of> {animal}.
>>>>
>>>> So, what is that statements truth-maker?
>>>>
>>>> And the truth-maker of that?
>>>>
>>>> You need a set of "first truth-makers" that do not themselves have
>>>> something more fundamental at their truth-makers.
>>>
>>> I have always had that and told you about it dozens of times.
>>> Some otherwise meaningless finite strings are stipulated to be
>>> true thus providing these finite strings with meaning.
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>>> Bachelor(x) <entails> ~Married(x)
>>
>> But that doesn't fit your defintion of a Truth having a truth maker.
>>
>
> OK then you disagree that cats are animals.
> As I have told you many hundreds of times DEFINITION
> is the foundational basis of every expression that
> is {true on the basis of its meaning.
But what MAKES cats animals?
And the problem with your definition, is every definition needs its
words defined, so definition by words is not the fundamental basis for
truth.
The fundamentals of a system must come from outside the system.
>
>>>
>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>
>>> This covers every truth that can possibly exist, true by
>>> definition, true by entailment, true by observation, true
>>> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>> If nothing makes X true then X is untrue.
>>
>> So a "true by definition" or "stipulated truth" needs a truth maker.
>>
>
> DEFINITION is the foundational TRUTH-MAKER
> for every expression that is
> {true on the basis of its meaning.
And how do you determine the meaning of the definition within the system.
>
>> What makes that definition or stuplation "true", what is its truth-maker?
>>
>
> What is it about a cat that makes it not
> a fifteen story officen building?
Nothing I know of, why do you think it is?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic
>>>>>>>>> answer is
>>>>>>>>> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of
>>>>>>>> language" in the sense you seem to be thinking of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of
>>>>>>> language"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And not all things are finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its
>>>>> meaning}
>>>>> is a finite string that is connected to the expressions of language
>>>>> that
>>>>> express its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> And that just gets you into circles,
>>>
>>> A tree of knowledge has no cycles. Willard Van Orman Quine
>>> was too stupid to see this.
>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>
>> And then what is at is root? Show me a word that can be "defined"
>> without using any other words.
>>
>
> The Cyc project has {thing} at its root.
And what can you define from just {thing}?
>
>>>
>>>> as the expression of language that expresses its meaning needs a
>>>> truth-maker too, and that need one for it, and so one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true
>>> thus giving them meaning. Rudolf Carnap may have been
>>> the first to formalize this with his meaning Postulates.
>>
>> But what gives the meaning to the stipulation?
>>
>
> How do you know that a cat is not a fifteen story office building?
How do you know it isn't?
>
>> A stipulation is just a piece of language, what gives it meaning other
>> than the words it uses, which need definitions.
>>
>
> There are a set of relations that exist.
From where?
> Their encoding in the various human languages is arbitrary.
> That is the stipulated part.
But what makes some relations "right" and some "wrong"?
>
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>>> Bachelor(x) <entails> ~Married(x)
>>>
>>>> You need a primative base that is accepted without proof, as there
>>>> is nothing to prove it, and that base defines the logic system you
>>>> are going to work in.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes
>>>>>>>>> expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is more than nothing in the universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a
>>>>>> truth-maker itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic facts are stipulated to be true.
>>>>> "A cat is an animal" is the same basic fact expressed
>>>>> in every human language and their mathematically
>>>>> formalized versions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, basic facts do not have a truth-maker in their universe.
>>>
>>> True by definition is their truthmaker.
>>
>> Not by your definition.
>>
>
> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker?
> The generic answer is whatever makes an expression
> of language true <is> its truthmaker.
Which doesn't always have an answer
>
> When I say ALL THINGS you and most people in truthmaker theory
> misinterpret EVERYTHING to mean a few things of a certain type.
So, in the Cyc project what defines {thing}
For your truthmaker idea, what makes the truthmaker true? If ALL THINGS
have a truthmaker, what is the truthmaker's truthmaker?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But "A cat is an animal" is NOT a statement that is true in every
>>>> system, as some systems might not HAVE a concept of "cat" in it at
>>>> all, so that would be a non-sense expression, or might even define
>>>> it to be something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That has already been covered by this*
>>> 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.
>>
>> But what them makes the truthmaker true? You said there were no cycles.
>>
>
> It is like a consistent set of axioms.
> {A cat is an animal} no matter what human language
> that is encoded within.
And what defines which axioms are used?
These are basic questions which you don't seem to understand, because
you can't think abstract enough,
>
>>>
>>>> YOu still keep on running into the problem that youu mind clearly
>>>> doesn't understand that expresability of logic, and you are stuck
>>>> just not understanding how abstractions work.
>>>
>>> Not at all. The problem is that you have not yet paid
>>> 100% complete attention to ALL of my words.
>>>
>>
>> so, what makes the truthmakers true?
>>
>
> What makes {cats} not {fifteen story office buildings} ?
> it is merely the conventions of language ?
So, what makes that true?
>
>> If they make themselves true, then you have a cycle, which you said
>> you didn't.
>>
>
> There is no cycle. It is all one huge tree of knowledge.
> I used to be able to link to the Cyc project's tree of
> knowledge. I have an offline copy of it.
>
So what gives meaning to the root? and from 1 root (since you say it is
one tree) how do you provide a description of the difference to move
from the root to the next layer down?
Yes, I am being intentionally difficult to show you that you have over
simplified what needs to be done to define such a system, because your
mind just can't conceive of the issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 10:13 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4bhqr$1hqq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106938 |
On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal
>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>
>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>> p = p Law of identity
>>> *No it cannot*
>>
>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>> of a formal system.
>>
>
> *This is the way that truth actually works*
As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 07:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4c587$1lec5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106973 |
On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is
>>>>>>>>>> easy to see
>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would
>>>>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this
>>>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be
>>>>>>>>>> true within
>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this
>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of
>>>>>>> its truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial
>>>>>>> for Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined
>>>>>>> to be the "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>
>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>> specification
>>> of a formal system.
>>>
>>
>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>
> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>
If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
of language X true then X is untrue.
This covers every truth that can possibly exist, true by
definition, true by entailment, true by observation, true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
If nothing makes X true then X is untrue.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 16:41 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4c8hm$1m8ib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106981 |
On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal
>>>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>
>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>
>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>
> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
> of language X true then X is untrue.
That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 09:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4ca5c$1mi5i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106984 |
On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not
>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would
>>>>>>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above:
>>>>>>>>>>>> “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> true within
>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this
>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition
>>>>>>>>> of its truth-makers, unless you let your definition become
>>>>>>>>> trivial for Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has
>>>>>>>>> been defined to be the "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>
>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system
>>>>> specifies
>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides,
>>>>> a the
>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>>>> specification
>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>
>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>
>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>
> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>
If a formal system says:
"cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
this formal system is wrong.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 19:45 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4cjau$1ob9b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106985 |
On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>>>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal
>>>>>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>
>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>
>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>
>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>
> If a formal system says:
> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
> this formal system is wrong.
No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language to aååly
to cats in the real world then you are wrong. A formal system cannot
be wrong just like the liar's paradox cannot be true.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 12:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4ck7s$1o4b4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106989 |
On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in
>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition
>>>>>>>>>>> of its truth-makers, unless you let your definition become
>>>>>>>>>>> trivial for Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has
>>>>>>>>>>> been defined to be the "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system
>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those.
>>>>>>> Besides, a the
>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>
>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>
>> If a formal system says:
>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>> this formal system is wrong.
>
> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
*Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
{cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
> to aååly
> to cats in the real world then you are wrong. A formal system cannot
> be wrong just like the liar's paradox cannot be true.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 09:17 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4e2u8$24lla$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106992 |
On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>
>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>
>>> If a formal system says:
>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>
>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>
> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 07:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4eo87$28g4v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107046 |
On 6/13/2024 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of its truth-makers, unless you let your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition become trivial for Formal logic where a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system
>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those.
>>>>>>>>> Besides, a the
>>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>>
>>>> If a formal system says:
>>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>>
>> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
>> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
>
> Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
>
When we define formal systems this way all ambiguity and vagueness is
eliminated. This is best exemplified in formalized English.
When I say I am going to drive my {cat}. this could mean
Transport(pet, veterinarian) operate(earth_moving_equipment).
When each sense meaning of every term has its own GUID then we
don't have to "interpret" what is mean this is fully specified.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 18:40 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4f3u7$2b5oo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107057 |
On 2024-06-13 12:21:27 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/13/2024 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for Formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
>>>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
>>>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
>>>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not limited by
>>>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a formal system says:
>>>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>>>
>>> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
>>> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
>>
>> Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
>>
>
> When we define formal systems this way all ambiguity and vagueness is
> eliminated. This is best exemplified in formalized English.
Typical formal system avoid ambiguity with different methods.
Nothing mentioned above restritcs what a formal system can say.
> When I say I am going to drive my {cat}. this could mean
> Transport(pet, veterinarian) operate(earth_moving_equipment).
> When each sense meaning of every term has its own GUID then we
> don't have to "interpret" what is mean this is fully specified.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 11:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4f636$2bgm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107070 |
On 6/13/2024 10:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-13 12:21:27 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/13/2024 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of its truth-makers, unless you let your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition become trivial for Formal logic where a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal
>>>>>>>>>>> system specifies
>>>>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those.
>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, a the
>>>>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not
>>>>>>>>> limited by
>>>>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a formal system says:
>>>>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>>>>
>>>> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
>>>> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
>>>
>>> Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
>>>
>>
>> When we define formal systems this way all ambiguity and vagueness is
>> eliminated. This is best exemplified in formalized English.
>
> Typical formal system avoid ambiguity with different methods.
> Nothing mentioned above restritcs what a formal system can say.
>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker?
The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true <is>
its truthmaker.
If of everything there is nothing that makes expression of language X
true then X is untrue.
The above establishes a key basis of ALL truth, truth within formal
systems is a tiny subset of this.
>> When I say I am going to drive my {cat}. this could mean
>> Transport(pet, veterinarian) operate(earth_moving_equipment).
>> When each sense meaning of every term has its own GUID then we
>> don't have to "interpret" what is mean this is fully specified.
>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 22:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems --- the way truth really works |
| Message-ID | <v4gb2c$3tn6r$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107057 |
On 6/13/24 8:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-12 17:00:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-12 14:08:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-12 12:44:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-11 16:06:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is easy to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above: “this sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be true within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of its truth-makers, unless you let your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition become trivial for Formal logic where a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>>>>>>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>>>>>>>> p = p Law of identity
>>>>>>>>>>> *No it cannot*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system
>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>> its own laws, which include all or some or none of those.
>>>>>>>>>> Besides, a the
>>>>>>>>>> word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the
>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>> of a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is the way that truth actually works*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as is empirially known. But a formal system is not
>>>>>>>> limited by
>>>>>>>> the limitations of our empirical knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there really is nothing anywhere that makes expression
>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That does not restrict what a formal system can say.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a formal system says:
>>>>> "cats <are> fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>> this formal system is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. If you inteprete a sentence of that language
>>>
>>> *Correct interpretation is hardwired into the formal language*
>>> {cats} and {office buildings} are specified by 128-bit GUIDs.
>>
>> Both of those claims are false about typical formal systems.
>>
>
> When we define formal systems this way all ambiguity and vagueness is
> eliminated. This is best exemplified in formalized English.
>
> When I say I am going to drive my {cat}. this could mean
> Transport(pet, veterinarian) operate(earth_moving_equipment).
> When each sense meaning of every term has its own GUID then we
> don't have to "interpret" what is mean this is fully specified.
>
Yes, English (or Natural Langage in general) is a very bad basis to
Formaliz a system on, as the word shave too many ambiquities in meaning.
Which is why they tend to develop a very FORMAL (i.e. not Natural)
Language to express themselves in.
Your problem is you never learned the formal meaning, so you keep on
misinterpreting the words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4auhq$3nf9m$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106888 |
On 6/10/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy
>>>>>>> to see
>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this
>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would
>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note,
>>>>>
>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its
>>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for
>>>> Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be
>>>> the "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>>> proved to be incorrect.
>>
>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
>
> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
Nope.
There are logicsystem that do not obey these "laws".
You are just ignorant of the breadth of the rules of logic.
> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
> (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
> p = p Law of identity
> *No it cannot*
>
> People are free to stipulate the value of PI as exactly
> 3.0 and they are simply wrong.
> *Three valued logic is simply not the way that reality really works*
And who says "reality" is what logic is about?
THAT is one of your fundamental errors.
>
>> If you call something "incorrect" without a proof then it
>> is only an insignificant opinion.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v44pe7$3g17f$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106787 |
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:36:32 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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. What even is a truthmaker? > 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. What if both or none have a truthmaker? -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 12:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44q4r$3lsrh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106798 |
On 6/9/2024 12:40 PM, joes wrote: > Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:36:32 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> 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. > What even is a truthmaker? > I just defined its precise scope. It is what-so-ever makes an expression of language true. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/ The cat in your living room makes "There is a cat in my living room" true. The definition of arithmetic makes 2 + 3 = 5 true. >> 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. > > What if both or none have a truthmaker? > I already answered for none. When X and ~X have no truthmaker then X is not a truthbearer. *The answer of both is proven impossible by* *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions* ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle p = p Law of identity -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v44r28$3egpa$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106787 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44r6c$3m841$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106803 |
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v44sdg$3egp9$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106818 |
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.
You don't get to tell others what foundations they have built there
logic on.
All that does is get you kicked out of those logics, as your logic
doesn't apply to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44tdv$3m841$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106822 |
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}.
Nonsense systems can be created where
2 + 3 = "I fell down and hurt my knee."
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.
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}.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v44tv1$3egp9$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106824 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web