There is a great debate about whether an expression of language
can be true without a truth maker.

Truthmaker Maximalism defended GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA
https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
non-existent.

True and unprovable is self-contradictory once one understands
how true really works the way that I and Wittgenstein do.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/2/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> There is a great debate about whether an expression of language
> can be true without a truth maker.

Not in Standard Formal Logic.

In Standard Formal Logic, a statments truth arises solely from have a
connection (possible infinite in length) via valid arguements to the
truthmakes of the system.

>
> Truthmaker Maximalism defended GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA
> https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

WHich isn't about Formal Systems, but just more generic philosophy.

>
> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
> non-existent.
>
> True and unprovable is self-contradictory once one understands
> how true really works the way that I and Wittgenstein do.
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>

Nope, because True allows for an INFINITE change of reasoning, while
PROOF requires a finite chain to allow it to come into the domain of
Knowledge, since we can not view an infinite chain of reason since we
are finite beings.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:50:50 -0500, olcott wrote:

> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
> non-existent.

Where does the truthmaker come from?

On 4/4/2024 12:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:50:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
>> non-existent.
>
> Where does the truthmaker come from?

An analytic truthmaker is any expression of language derived
from expressions that are stipulated to be true. These are
usually the definitions providing the semantic meanings of terms.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:50:14 -0500, olcott wrote:

> On 4/4/2024 12:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:50:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
>>> non-existent.
>>
>> Where does the truthmaker come from?
>
> An analytic truthmaker is any expression of language derived from
> expressions that are stipulated to be true. These are usually the
> definitions providing the semantic meanings of terms.

So “truthmaker” is a matter of definition? A set of “axioms of truth”, if
you like?

On 4/4/2024 12:54 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:50:14 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2024 12:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:50:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> A truth without a truthmaker is like a cake without a baker,
>>>> non-existent.
>>>
>>> Where does the truthmaker come from?
>>
>> An analytic truthmaker is any expression of language derived from
>> expressions that are stipulated to be true. These are usually the
>> definitions providing the semantic meanings of terms.
>
> So “truthmaker” is a matter of definition? A set of “axioms of truth”, if
> you like?

Only for analytic truth-makers.
Axioms of truth and what is semantically deduced from them.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 01:16:46 -0500, olcott wrote:

> On 4/4/2024 12:54 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> So “truthmaker” is a matter of definition? A set of “axioms of truth”,
>> if you like?
>
> Only for analytic truth-makers.

Is there some other kind?

On 4/4/2024 6:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 01:16:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2024 12:54 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> So “truthmaker” is a matter of definition? A set of “axioms of truth”,
>>> if you like?
>>
>> Only for analytic truth-makers.
>
> Is there some other kind?

There are only two kinds of truth:
(a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."

(b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
now."

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:

> There are only two kinds of truth:
> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>
> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
> now."

Which kind of truth is that statement?

On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>
>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
>> now."
>
> Which kind of truth is that statement?

Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:

> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>
>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>> right now."
>>
>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>
> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.

You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
kind of “truth” is it?

On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>
>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
>> now."
>
> Which kind of truth is that statement?

It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.
In particular, Olcott doesn't use the word "truth" for any other
kind, although someone else might say, e.g., that a moral truth is
a truth, too.

--
Mikko

Op 06.apr.2024 om 07:40 schreef Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>
>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>> right now."
>>>
>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>
>> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>
> You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
> kind of “truth” is it?
I have similar questions. It seems to be an axiom. Do axioms have a
truth value? Are they true by definition, but only within a certain
analytical system? Could they be false/untrue in other systems? If so,
about which system is olcott talking?

On 4/6/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>
>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
>>> now."
>>
>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>
> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>

THen why is "There is a dog in my living room right now" not "Analytic"?

Isn't that "Encoded using language"?

On 4/6/24 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 06.apr.2024 om 07:40 schreef Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>>> right now."
>>>>
>>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>>
>>> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>>
>> You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
>> kind of “truth” is it?
> I have similar questions. It seems to be an axiom. Do axioms have a
> truth value? Are they true by definition, but only within a certain
> analytical system? Could they be false/untrue in other systems? If so,
> about which system is olcott talking?

Yes, this is one of the problems with Olcottian logic. It isn't well
defined (and inconsistently defined). He seems to be stuck in
Philosophical circles where "Great Thinkers" argue over the rules that
they should be working under, and as such, don't fully define themselves.

For instance, The Pythagorean Theorem, that the square of the Hypotonuse
of a right triangle is equal to the square of the other two sides, is
generally considered an "Analytic Truth" in Plane/Euclidean Geometry,
but the truth of the statement isn't derived from the "Meaning of the
words", since those meanings don't change between Plane and
non-Euclidean Geometry, but on the Semantic Meaning of the statement as
it derives from the logic of the system it is embedded in.

It is true, not on the "Meaning of the words", but on the logical flow
from the axioms through logically correct and sound processes. This is
what "Semantics" (aka meaning) means in Formal Logic.

Formal Logic doesn't have arguments over "truth-makers" because it
DEFINES truth based on the statement following from the "truth-makers"
of the system. Formal Logic doesn't have "Empeirical" Truths, as
"Senses" don't apply to them. At best, we bring in sense data as part of
our initial basis of what are the "truth-makers" of the system.

On 4/6/2024 12:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>
>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>> right now."
>>>
>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>
>> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>
> You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
> kind of “truth” is it?

The actual taste of strawberries and the actual smell of coffee
cannot be encoded in language. Declarative sentences in English
are how analytic truth is represented in English. Some declarative
sentences may be false. For English sentences the meaning of their
words determines their truth or falsity.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/6/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>
>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
>>> now."
>>
>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>
> It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.
> In particular, Olcott doesn't use the word "truth" for any other
> kind, although someone else might say, e.g., that a moral truth is
> a truth, too.
>

A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.
It seems to me that morality can only be correctly addressed
through consequentialism. Bereft of a harmful effect there
can be no wrong.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/6/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 06.apr.2024 om 07:40 schreef Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>>> right now."
>>>>
>>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>>
>>> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>>
>> You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
>> kind of “truth” is it?
> I have similar questions. It seems to be an axiom. Do axioms have a
> truth value? Are they true by definition, but only within a certain
> analytical system? Could they be false/untrue in other systems? If so,
> about which system is olcott talking?

Cats are animals is an axiom of natural language.
The Cyc project uses 128-bit GUIDs in place of words
that give each sense meaning of a word its own unique
identifier and accounts for the varied natural languages.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/6/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 12:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2024 8:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>>> right now."
>>>>
>>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>>
>>> Everything that can be encoded using language is analytic.
>>
>> You said “There are only two kinds of truth”. If that is true, then which
>> kind of “truth” is it?
>
> The actual taste of strawberries and the actual smell of coffee
> cannot be encoded in language. Declarative sentences in English
> are how analytic truth is represented in English. Some declarative
> sentences may be false. For English sentences the meaning of their
> words determines their truth or falsity.
>

So, is the English Sentence, "The square of the length of the Hypotenuse
of a Right Triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of
the other two sides." a True statement or a False Statement? Based just
on the meaning of the words.

On 4/6/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>
>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
>>>> now."
>>>
>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>
>> It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.
>> In particular, Olcott doesn't use the word "truth" for any other
>> kind, although someone else might say, e.g., that a moral truth is
>> a truth, too.
>>
>
> A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.
> It seems to me that morality can only be correctly addressed
> through consequentialism. Bereft of a harmful effect there
> can be no wrong.
>
> https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
>

Means you don't understand what Moral Truth actually is.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:34:38 +0300, Mikko wrote:

> On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>
>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>> right now."
>>
>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>
> It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.

Can you offer a proof of that?

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 08:57:43 -0500, olcott wrote:

> A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.

Is that your opinion?

On 4/6/2024 9:08 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:34:38 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are only two kinds of truth:
>>>> (a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
>>>> of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>>>>
>>>> (b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
>>>> from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room
>>>> right now."
>>>
>>> Which kind of truth is that statement?
>>
>> It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.
>
> Can you offer a proof of that?

Cats are animals thus are not fifteen story office buildings
is true on the basis of the meaning of its words.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/6/2024 9:09 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 08:57:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.
>
> Is that your opinion?

It seems to be a fact that many notions of morality are culturally
relative.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/6/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 9:09 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 08:57:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.
>>
>> Is that your opinion?
>
> It seems to be a fact that many notions of morality are culturally
> relative.
>

Which shows that you don't understand the nature of Morals.

Of course, based on your behavior, that almost seems axiomatic.

Now, what one thinks themselves as Moral Truths, may be culturally
relative, just as people might have differing ideas of what is
empirically true, but there may be actually an objective truth behind
the "senses".