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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 10:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems |
| Message-ID | <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> |
*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}.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 12:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44o5t$3l9t2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106787 |
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.
--
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 | <v44r29$3egpa$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106797 |
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,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 13:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44rd0$3m841$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106804 |
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.
*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
Inconsistent systems cannot be truthmakers
in those cases where they derive inconsistency.
--
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 14:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v44sa5$3egpa$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106819 |
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.
>
> *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
Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or both
of the first two "laws".
I am not sure about the third, while I can't think of a system that
doesn't have the law of identity, I am not sure it is absoultely required.
(after a bit of research)
In Schrödinger logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_logic
the law of identity is greatly restricted, because the statement x = y
is not a well-formed formula in many cases, so it might not be true that
x = x
>
> Inconsistent systems cannot be truthmakers
> in those cases where they derive inconsistency.
>
Illogical.
"inconsistent SYSTEMS" are not the same sort of thing as a "truth-maker"
as the first is a system of logic, and the second is a statement
expressed in such a system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 13:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44suh$3m841$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106821 |
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.
>>
>> *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
>
> Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>
> There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or both
> of the first two "laws".
>
I personally construe those as nonsense.
True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
that I consider correct.
--
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 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v44toi$3egp9$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106823 |
On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says FOR
ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect,
just inconsistent.
Note, some Formal Logic system specifically DEFINE how to handle
inconsistant statements (typically uses a non-binary logic system, which
makes the term "inconsistant" somewhat of a poorly defined term).
>
>>>
>>> *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
>>
>> Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>>
>> There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or
>> both of the first two "laws".
>>
>
> I personally construe those as nonsense.
> True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
> that I consider correct.
>
So, you admit that you logic system isn't the classical binary system,
and thus not applicable for most classical logic based on binary logic,
and that you mind is just unimaginative enough to handle broader systems
of logic.
I guess you just admitted that your definiton of a "Foundation of Logic"
has just defined yourself out of all the fields you want to talk about,
since they do NOT have the logic value of "not a truth-bearer".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44ujh$3m841$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106825 |
On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says FOR
> ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>
> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect,
> just inconsistent.
>
To the extent that they define inconsistency they
are not truth-makers.
> Note, some Formal Logic system specifically DEFINE how to handle
> inconsistant statements (typically uses a non-binary logic system, which
> makes the term "inconsistant" somewhat of a poorly defined term).
>
If they do not reject inconsistent axioms then they are wrong.
>>
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>>
>>> Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>>>
>>> There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or
>>> both of the first two "laws".
>>>
>>
>> I personally construe those as nonsense.
>> True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
>> that I consider correct.
>>
>
>
> So, you admit that you logic system isn't the classical binary system,
> and thus not applicable for most classical logic based on binary logic,
> and that you mind is just unimaginative enough to handle broader systems
> of logic.
>
Classic logic makes sure to ignore that some expressions
of language are not truth-bearers.
> I guess you just admitted that your definiton of
I defined the foundation of ALL truth, when logic diverges
from this then logic is incorrect.
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.
> a "Foundation of Logic"
> has just defined yourself out of all the fields you want to talk about,
> since they do NOT have the logic value of "not a truth-bearer".
>
>
--
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 15:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4508h$3egpa$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106827 |
On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says
>> FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>
>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect,
>> just inconsistent.
>>
>
> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
> are not truth-makers.
YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>
>> Note, some Formal Logic system specifically DEFINE how to handle
>> inconsistant statements (typically uses a non-binary logic system,
>> which makes the term "inconsistant" somewhat of a poorly defined term).
>>
>
> If they do not reject inconsistent axioms then they are wrong.
>
Nope, not for system defined to allow inconsistancies. In fact,
"inconsistant" might be a truth value.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>> Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>>>>
>>>> There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or
>>>> both of the first two "laws".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I personally construe those as nonsense.
>>> True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
>>> that I consider correct.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, you admit that you logic system isn't the classical binary system,
>> and thus not applicable for most classical logic based on binary
>> logic, and that you mind is just unimaginative enough to handle
>> broader systems of logic.
>>
>
> Classic logic makes sure to ignore that some expressions
> of language are not truth-bearers.
Nope, but it doesn't do that by having a truth value of "not a
truth-bearer" like you do.
>
>> I guess you just admitted that your definiton of
>
> I defined the foundation of ALL truth, when logic diverges
> from this then logic is incorrect.
Nope, you don't have the power to do so.
You just threw yourself out of the "heaven" of logic, by rejecting that
basic rules of it.
>
> 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.
Unless what makes the statement true is the universe (logic system)
itself. The Universe is not IN the Universe.
Axioms are truth-makers because they are axioms.
>
>> a "Foundation of Logic" has just defined yourself out of all the
>> fields you want to talk about, since they do NOT have the logic value
>> of "not a truth-bearer".
>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v45pfb$3ph0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106829 |
On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says
>>> FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>
>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect,
>>> just inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>> are not truth-makers.
>
>
> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>
> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>
> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>
*Stopping at your first big mistake*
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
truthmaker.
--
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 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v45q1d$3h641$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106855 |
On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says
>>>> FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>>
>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect,
>>>> just inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>> are not truth-makers.
>>
>>
>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>>
>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>>
>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>>
>
> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
>
> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>
> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
> truthmaker.
>
Which isn't a formal system.
A formal system that defines inconsistant axioms, is still a formal
system, and defines inconsistent axioms.
It may well be a formal system DESIGNED to handle inconsistant
statements, by using multi-valued logic.
It might be based on a limited form of logic that prevents the principle
of explosion from happening, and thus even with some inconsistancies, it
can be used to show some other useful results.
That doesn't make the system "not true".
YOu are just showing that you concept of logic is way too limited to be
"the ultimate definition of logic".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 22:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v45qvp$41qf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106857 |
On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says
>>>>> FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>>>
>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily
>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>>> are not truth-makers.
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>>>
>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>>>
>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>>>
>>
>> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
>>
>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
>> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>>
>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
>> truthmaker.
>>
>
> Which isn't a formal system.
>
A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
a formal system.
> A formal system that defines inconsistant axioms, is still a formal
> system, and defines inconsistent axioms.
>
Yes and it is wrong.
> It may well be a formal system DESIGNED to handle inconsistant
> statements, by using multi-valued logic.
>
That is not the way that truth really works.
Did a person invent the value of PI or discover it?
I am not inventing the notion of truthmaker I am making this notion
more clear.
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.
> It might be based on a limited form of logic that prevents the principle
> of explosion from happening, and thus even with some inconsistancies, it
> can be used to show some other useful results.
>
> That doesn't make the system "not true".
>
> YOu are just showing that you concept of logic is way too limited to be
> "the ultimate definition of logic".
>
>
--
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 | 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v46na2$3ifov$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106860 |
On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it
>>>>>> says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily
>>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>>>> are not truth-makers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>>>>
>>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
>>>
>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
>>> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>>>
>>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
>>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
>>> truthmaker.
>>>
>>
>> Which isn't a formal system.
>>
>
> A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
> a formal system.
>
So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems?
or do you agree that you reply was just Red Herring?
>> A formal system that defines inconsistant axioms, is still a formal
>> system, and defines inconsistent axioms.
>>
>
> Yes and it is wrong.
You don't get to say that a System is wrong just because it doesn't meet
YOUR idea of what is correct.
You just have a God complex, which is going to put you into Gehenna.
>
>> It may well be a formal system DESIGNED to handle inconsistant
>> statements, by using multi-valued logic.
>>
>
> That is not the way that truth really works.
> Did a person invent the value of PI or discover it?
Red Herring.
You just don't understand the concept, because it is beyond you.
That makes you just like the flat earthers or election deniers.
>
> I am not inventing the notion of truthmaker I am making this notion
> more clear.
And trying to push it outside its domain.
>
> 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 not all logic is about THIS "Universe", which seems to be a
fundamental error on your part.
Thus the qualifier "The" is incorrect, as it implies singular.
>
>> It might be based on a limited form of logic that prevents the
>> principle of explosion from happening, and thus even with some
>> inconsistancies, it can be used to show some other useful results.
>>
>> That doesn't make the system "not true".
>>
>> YOu are just showing that you concept of logic is way too limited to
>> be "the ultimate definition of logic".
>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 11:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v478g9$hcgj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106879 |
On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it
>>>>>>> says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily
>>>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>>>>> are not truth-makers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
>>>>
>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer
>>>> is whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>>>>
>>>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
>>>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
>>>> truthmaker.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which isn't a formal system.
>>>
>>
>> A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
>> a formal system.
>>
>
> So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems?
>
I never agreed to anything like that.
When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way:
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.
Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works.
--
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 | 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v48gh2$3kcoe$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106903 |
On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it
>>>>>>>> says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily
>>>>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they
>>>>>>> are not truth-makers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Stopping at your first big mistake*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer
>>>>> is whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
>>>>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
>>>>> truthmaker.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't a formal system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A cat in your living room <is> a truthmaker and is not
>>> a formal system.
>>>
>>
>> So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems?
>>
>
> I never agreed to anything like that.
> When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way:
>
> 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.
>
> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works.
>
So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the
universe", as Formal Logic systems are not.
Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our
universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the
agreed upon manner.
I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction.
Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant
behavior" as not being "wrong".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4a1jk$15ems$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106917 |
On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works. >> > > So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the > universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. > *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE* In other words you are saying that formal system have never existing in any way what-so-ever? > Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our > universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the > agreed upon manner. > > I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction. > > Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant > behavior" as not being "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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 19:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4am8g$3n8ob$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106943 |
On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works. >>> >> >> So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the >> universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. >> > > *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE* > In other words you are saying that formal system have never > existing in any way what-so-ever? Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not understand the meaning of a universe. When used with the definate article, a generic word like "universe" implies a reference to the singular instnace of it that closest fits the context, which would be our physical universe. Formal Systems are not tied to our physical universe, but create their own universe based on the definitions embedded into them. That CAN create a tie to our universe, but doesn't need to. So, all you did by that comment is expose your lack of understanding of things abstract. > >> Their concept of truth is NOT related to any of the facts about our >> universe, but only their wholely self-contained system, built on the >> agreed upon manner. >> >> I think your problem is you just can't handle that level of abstraction. >> >> Just like you can't understand a logic system allowing "inconsistant >> behavior" as not being "wrong". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 20:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4aufn$1apao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106947 |
On 6/11/2024 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really works. >>>> >>> >>> So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the >>> universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. >>> >> >> *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE* >> In other words you are saying that formal system have never >> existing in any way what-so-ever? > > Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not understand > the meaning of a universe. > The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents. It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galactic filaments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe AKA *EVERYTHING* Duh ! -- 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 | 2024-06-11 22:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4b1gd$3nf9m$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106951 |
On 6/11/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really >>>>> works. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the >>>> universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. >>>> >>> >>> *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE* >>> In other words you are saying that formal system have never >>> existing in any way what-so-ever? >> >> Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not >> understand the meaning of a universe. >> > > The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents. > It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical > process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and > matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to > entire galactic filaments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe > > AKA *EVERYTHING* Duh ! > But it is only ONE of an infinite number of such systems. For instance, the Natural Numbers do not exist in "our universe" as anything physical in it. They are PURELY a matter of thought in a universe created by the rules that generate them. So, no where near "Everything".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 21:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4b2sa$1f89t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106963 |
On 6/11/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/10/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then it is self-evident that this <is> the way that truth really >>>>>> works. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, how does that apply to something that isn't a part of "the >>>>> universe", as Formal Logic systems are not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *STOPPING AT YOUR FIRST RIDICULOUSLY HUGE MISTAKE* >>>> In other words you are saying that formal system have never >>>> existing in any way what-so-ever? >>> >>> Nope, and I don't see where you get that from, except to not >>> understand the meaning of a universe. >>> >> >> The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents. >> It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical >> process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and >> matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to >> entire galactic filaments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe >> >> AKA *EVERYTHING* Duh ! >> > > But it is only ONE of an infinite number of such systems. > So I have to dumb it down for you: *EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE* -- 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]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web