Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335319 > 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 63 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:52 -0500
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 --- 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 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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4b32m$3nf9m$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335394 |
On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: > 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* > Let me dumb it down for you: So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? How about the bigger set of the Reals? Answer me please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4b45c$1f89t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335395 |
On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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* >> > > Let me dumb it down for you: > > So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? > > How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? > > How about the bigger set of the Reals? > > Answer me please. Algorithmic compression. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4c12p$3oop0$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335397 |
On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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* >>> >> >> Let me dumb it down for you: >> >> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >> >> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >> >> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >> >> Answer me please. > > Algorithmic compression. > And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? That is a property that comes out of non-physical logic. You still haven't shown where any of the steps come out of the physical universe, perhaps because you don't even understand the definition of THAT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4cfhu$1nhr0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335403 |
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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* >>>> >>> >>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>> >>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>> >>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>> >>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>> >>> Answer me please. >> >> Algorithmic compression. >> > > And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? > Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 19:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4dc5j$3qbnc$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335408 |
On 6/12/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>>> >>>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>>> >>>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>>> >>>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>>> >>>> Answer me please. >>> >>> Algorithmic compression. >>> >> >> And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? >> > > Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? > Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. > How many times did you reference "Physical" in this statement from above? > > 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 ! > What in that refers to anything not related to physical objects and their interactions? Where do "Natural Numbers" fit in there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 19:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4dfdo$1te0b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335427 |
On 6/12/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>>>> >>>>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>>>> >>>>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>>>> >>>>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>>>> >>>>> Answer me please. >>>> >>>> Algorithmic compression. >>>> >>> >>> And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? >>> >> >> Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? >> Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. >> > > How many times did you reference "Physical" in this statement from above? > >> >> 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 ! >> > > > What in that refers to anything not related to physical objects and > their interactions? > > Where do "Natural Numbers" fit in there? > In other words you are trying to get away with saying that the concept and definition of natural number is not in the set of all things thus has no existence what-s-ever thus you never asked that question. https://liarparadox.org/GodsPlan.gif The fourth and sixth step of the above tree divides reality into physical existence and conceptual existence. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4dg4v$3qbnd$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335432 |
On 6/12/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>>>>> >>>>>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>>>>> >>>>>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>>>>> >>>>>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>>>>> >>>>>> Answer me please. >>>>> >>>>> Algorithmic compression. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? >>>> >>> >>> Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? >>> Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. >>> >> >> How many times did you reference "Physical" in this statement from above? >> >>> >>> 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 ! >>> >> >> >> What in that refers to anything not related to physical objects and >> their interactions? >> >> Where do "Natural Numbers" fit in there? >> > > In other words you are trying to get away with saying that the > concept and definition of natural number is not in the set of > all things thus has no existence what-s-ever thus you never > asked that question. > Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the universe is substance. > https://liarparadox.org/GodsPlan.gif > The fourth and sixth step of the above tree divides > reality into physical existence and conceptual existence. > > And why do you think that is the actual order things happened? And what does that have to do with your claim that Natural Numbers exist in the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4digg$1tsdf$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335434 |
On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Answer me please. >>>>>> >>>>>> Algorithmic compression. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? >>>> Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. >>>> >>> >>> How many times did you reference "Physical" in this statement from >>> above? >>> >>>> >>>> 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 ! >>>> >>> >>> >>> What in that refers to anything not related to physical objects and >>> their interactions? >>> >>> Where do "Natural Numbers" fit in there? >>> >> >> In other words you are trying to get away with saying that the >> concept and definition of natural number is not in the set of >> all things thus has no existence what-s-ever thus you never >> asked that question. >> > > Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but doesn't > derive from any part of the "universe". > > Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the > universe is substance. > OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. FOR THE SAME X OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER. >> https://liarparadox.org/GodsPlan.gif >> The fourth and sixth step of the above tree divides >> reality into physical existence and conceptual existence. >> >> > > And why do you think that is the actual order things happened? > > And what does that have to do with your claim that Natural Numbers exist > in the universe. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 21:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4djfe$3qbnd$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335439 |
On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me dumb it down for you: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, where are the Natural Numbers is THIS UNIVERSE? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How can the finite universe hold all of the infinite set? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about the bigger set of the Reals? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Answer me please. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Algorithmic compression. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And where does THAT exist as something physical in the universe? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where did I ever say that I am restricting this to physical things? >>>>> Truth itself is a pure mental abstraction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How many times did you reference "Physical" in this statement from >>>> above? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 ! >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What in that refers to anything not related to physical objects and >>>> their interactions? >>>> >>>> Where do "Natural Numbers" fit in there? >>>> >>> >>> In other words you are trying to get away with saying that the >>> concept and definition of natural number is not in the set of >>> all things thus has no existence what-s-ever thus you never >>> asked that question. >>> >> >> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but doesn't >> derive from any part of the "universe". >> >> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the >> universe is substance. >> > > OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION > OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of language true? Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? > > FOR THE SAME X > OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION > OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER. So, how do we know about that? proving non-existance is very hard. > > > >>> https://liarparadox.org/GodsPlan.gif >>> The fourth and sixth step of the above tree divides >>> reality into physical existence and conceptual existence. >>> >>> >> >> And why do you think that is the actual order things happened? >> >> And what does that have to do with your claim that Natural Numbers >> exist in the universe. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4djtr$1tsdf$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335443 |
On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>> >>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the >>> universe is substance. >>> >> >> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. > > And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of > language true? > What makes the expression: "a frog" true? > Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not > show that there is nothing that makes it true? > Truth need not be known. If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression of language X true then X is untrue. >> >> FOR THE SAME X >> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >> OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER. > > > So, how do we know about that? > Try to show that "a frog" is true. Did that take an infinite search? > proving non-existance is very hard. > There are many unknowns. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4dl2i$3qbnc$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335445 |
On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>> >>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the >>>> universe is substance. >>>> >>> >>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >> >> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of >> language true? >> > > What makes the expression: "a frog" true? I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding one, or a box with a disection kit. > >> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not >> show that there is nothing that makes it true? >> > > Truth need not be known. Then why do you insisit it must be provable? > If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression > of language X true then X is untrue. Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? And what if the thing is true in some other universe, but its converse is true in this one? > >>> >>> FOR THE SAME X >>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>> OF LANGUAGE ~X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X IS NOT A TRUTH-BEARER. >> >> >> So, how do we know about that? >> > > Try to show that "a frog" is true. > Did that take an infinite search? Like I said above, it depends on the context. > >> proving non-existance is very hard. >> > > There are many unknowns. > Yes, and many things that are UNKNOWABLE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4dlo1$22cmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335448 |
On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>> >>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the >>>>> universe is substance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >>> >>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression >>> of language true? >>> >> >> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? > > I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? > > It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding one, > or a box with a disection kit. > >> >>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can >>> not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>> >> >> Truth need not be known. > > Then why do you insisit it must be provable? > >> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >> of language X true then X is untrue. > > Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? > I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4dmam$3qbnc$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335451 |
On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and >>>>>> the universe is substance. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >>>> >>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression >>>> of language true? >>>> >>> >>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >> >> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >> >> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding >> one, or a box with a disection kit. >> >>> >>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can >>>> not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>> >>> >>> Truth need not be known. >> >> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >> >>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>> of language X true then X is untrue. >> >> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >> > > I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other > words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING > USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. > And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly communicate. You complain because I forget things you said a long time ago that you think must still be assumed in your words, and you also think it is incorrect to assume you are making the same arguement you made a little bit ago. You are just in an inconsistant logic system, because you don't understand the meaning of truth. I think the problem is that YOU don't really understand what you mean, because you don't really understand the nature of the words you use. It seems that you can't even seem to hold onto your core ideas, perhaps because there is a fundamental conflict in them that you just can't handle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4dmuk$22cmj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335453 |
On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and >>>>>>> the universe is substance. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>> >>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression >>>>> of language true? >>>>> >>>> >>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>> >>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>> >>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding >>> one, or a box with a disection kit. >>> >>>> >>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can >>>>> not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Truth need not be known. >>> >>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>> >>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>> >>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>> >> >> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING >> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >> > > And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly > communicate. > That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression of language 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4do86$3qbnd$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335455 |
On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and >>>>>>>> the universe is substance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>> >>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>> >>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>> >>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding >>>> one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can >>>>>> not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>> >>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>> >>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>> >>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>>> >>> >>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING >>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>> >> >> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >> communicate. >> > > That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? > IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. > > I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. > I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. > > If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression > of language X true then X is untrue. > > WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is not one "Universe" that is everything. By your arguement, We can talk about Purple Fairy Dust Powered Unicorns existing and doing their magic, because they exist in some universe. The problem with trying to include EVERYTHING in an unrestricted manner is that everythig in that manner is just inconsistant. Of course, since it seems you never actually did much real study of logic, maybe just read the Cliff Notes version, you missed a lot of the important details that make you fundamentals break apart. You CAN'T break down your ideas into more basic terms, as you have had to paraphrase the terms so you could understand, and lost the actual foundations to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4docm$22o4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335458 |
On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>>>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and >>>>>>>>> the universe is substance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>> >>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding >>>>> one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we >>>>>>> can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>>> >>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>>> >>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>> >>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING >>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>>> >>> >>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >>> communicate. >>> >> >> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? >> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. >> >> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. >> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. >> >> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >> of language X true then X is untrue. >> >> > > WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is not > one "Universe" that is everything. > *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING* -- 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 | 2024-06-12 23:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4dqb6$3qbnc$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335459 |
On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but >>>>>>>>>> doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, >>>>>>>>>> and the universe is substance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO >>>>>>>>> TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>> >>>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage >>>>>> holding one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we >>>>>>>> can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>>>> >>>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING >>>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >>>> communicate. >>>> >>> >>> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? >>> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. >>> >>> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. >>> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. >>> >>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>> >>> >> >> WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is >> not one "Universe" that is everything. >> > > *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING* > But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved about Naive Set Theory. No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually tries to encompase EVERYTHING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4dqtt$2379j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335464 |
On 6/12/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, >>>>>>>>>>> but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, >>>>>>>>>>> and the universe is substance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO >>>>>>>>>> TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage >>>>>>> holding one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we >>>>>>>>> can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>>>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING >>>>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >>>>> communicate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? >>>> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. >>>> >>>> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. >>>> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. >>>> >>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is >>> not one "Universe" that is everything. >>> >> >> *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING* >> > > But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved about > Naive Set Theory. > > No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually tries > to encompase EVERYTHING. So you disagree that there is an EVERYTHING. IS THAT ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DISAGREE? -- 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 07:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v4el9i$3rsd6$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335466 |
On 6/13/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, >>>>>>>>>>>> but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, >>>>>>>>>>>> and the universe is substance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO >>>>>>>>>>> TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage >>>>>>>> holding one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we >>>>>>>>>> can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>>>>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT >>>>>>> FREAKING >>>>>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >>>>>> communicate. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? >>>>> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. >>>>> >>>>> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. >>>>> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. >>>>> >>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is >>>> not one "Universe" that is everything. >>>> >>> >>> *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING* >>> >> >> But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved about >> Naive Set Theory. >> >> No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually >> tries to encompase EVERYTHING. > > So you disagree that there is an EVERYTHING. > IS THAT ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DISAGREE? > No, there is a concept of "Everything" but it is not very usable as a single unified object because parts of it are inconsistant with other parts of it. You just don't seem to be able to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, which is why you have your problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4esdh$28g4v$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335469 |
On 6/13/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the universe is substance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION >>>>>>>>>>>> OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO >>>>>>>>>>>> TRUTH-MAKER. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the >>>>>>>>>>> expression of language true? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage >>>>>>>>> holding one, or a box with a disection kit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because >>>>>>>>>>> we can not show that there is nothing that makes it true? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Truth need not be known. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then why do you insisit it must be provable? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does that only include things in that universe, or of any >>>>>>>>> universe? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other >>>>>>>> words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT >>>>>>>> FREAKING >>>>>>>> USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly >>>>>>> communicate. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention? >>>>>> IT WAS YOU THAT DID NOT PAY ATTENTION. >>>>>> >>>>>> I changed the words in my paper based on your feedback. >>>>>> I have always used the term UNIVERSE to exactly mean EVERYTHING. >>>>>> >>>>>> If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression >>>>>> of language X true then X is untrue. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WHich just means you have the problem of Naive Set Theory. There is >>>>> not one "Universe" that is everything. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *THERE IS A FREAKING EVERYTHING* >>>> >>> >>> But you can't just accept everything. That is what Russel proved >>> about Naive Set Theory. >>> >>> No finite logic can handle the magnatude of a theory that actually >>> tries to encompase EVERYTHING. >> >> So you disagree that there is an EVERYTHING. >> IS THAT ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DISAGREE? >> > > No, there is a concept of "Everything" but it is not very usable as a > single unified object because parts of it are inconsistant with other > parts of it. > If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that does X then X cannot be done. > You just don't seem to be able to understand these sorts of abstract > concepts, which is why you have your problems. I understand them at a higher level of abstraction than you are currently capable of and you have no correct reasoning to show otherwise. Most of the best experts in truth-maker theory make this same mistake because they define their terms to have subtle incoherence that is too abstract to be noticed by them. *These definitions prove that every truth has a truthmaker* 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. X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker. If neither X nor ~X has a truthmaker then X is 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]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web