Truthmaker Maximalism is established

[PeteOlcott]

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 truthbearer. X is a truthbearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.

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 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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

Truthmaker Maximalism is merely a truism.
I see truthmaker theory as problematic in the following sense;

Truthmaker maximalism is the thesis that every truth has a truthmaker. [WIKI]
"The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker."

Truthmaker theory is grounded on philosophical realism which itself is grounded on an illusion.

Philosophical realism ..– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthmaker_theory

With philosophical realism, it is;

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers [that are absolutely mind-independent]".

From the philosophical antirealist [Kantian] perspective, truthmakers that are absolutely mind-independent cannot exist are really real absolutely* independent things, they are merely illusions if reified as real. * the term 'absolutely' is critical in this case.

What is really real, factual, true and objective are reality and things that are contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.
The FS in this case is not merely descriptive, perceptive or cognitive, but is also an FS that enable the emergence and realization of reality of things-in-reality.
Because the FS are human-based the resultant cannot be absolutely mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realists.

As such, you need to be aware the basis of your OP is grounded on an illusion.

[PeteOlcott]

....

Truthmaker Maximalism is merely a truism.
I see truthmaker theory as problematic in the following sense;

That is why I redefined 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.

This is the ultimate foundation of all truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

Truthmaker Maximalism is merely a truism.
I see truthmaker theory as problematic in the following sense;

That is why I redefined 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.

This is the ultimate foundation of all truth.

I don't get you point?

What is your new definition precisely?

My point is this talk of truthmakers and truthbearers are ineffective.
Whatever is the truth or fact, it must be conditioned to a specific human-based framework and system [FS]. e.g.

Scientific facts [or truths] are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means- within the human-based scientific FS.

"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [within the linguistic FS], and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact [within the astronomical FS]. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts [within a historical FS].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Do you agree the truthmaker theory and truthbearer theory are ineffective, instead what is more effective is to deal with objective truth within a human-based framework and system?

[PeteOlcott]

Do you agree the truthmaker theory and truthbearer theory are ineffective, instead what is more effective is to deal with objective truth within a human-based framework and system?

I am establishing the actual foundation for truth itself.

From examining the literature the key issue seems to be that no one can agree
on any of the definitions of any of the terms, so I just go ahead and stipulate
these definitions to make the underlying ideas fit together, intuitively, coherently
and consistently.

A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true.

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 truthbearer. X is a truthbearer
iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you agree the truthmaker theory and truthbearer theory are ineffective, instead what is more effective is to deal with objective truth within a human-based framework and system?

I am establishing the actual foundation for truth itself.

From examining the literature the key issue seems to be that no one can agree
on any of the definitions of any of the terms, so I just go ahead and stipulate
these definitions to make the underlying ideas fit together, intuitively, coherently
and consistently.

OK.
But your foundation for truth is not that solid.

A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true.

You have to qualify the above with;

A truth-maker is 'literally' anything that makes an expression of language true contingent within a human-based linguistic framework and system.
That will make it merely linguistically true.

Say,
'Water is H20' which is ONLY linguistically true as conditioned within a human-based English framework and system [FS], but that is not sufficiently true, unless it is qualified to be contingent upon a science-chemistry FS.
'Water is H20' as a linguistic fact is insufficient, it has to be verified and justified empirically within a science-chemistry FS.

'Water is H20' is true not because of language but critically it is because the science-chemistry said so where the language is secondary.

So, your "A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true" is not very sound unless you further qualify it to its respective human-based FS of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

"God exists as a powerful entity" can be linguistically true within a theological FS but it has no credibility and objectivity when compared to the gold standard, i.e. the scientific FS.

[PeteOlcott]

I am establishing the actual foundation for truth itself.

OK.
But your foundation for truth is not that solid.

A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true.

You have to qualify the above with;

A truth-maker is 'literally' anything that makes an expression of language true contingent within a human-based linguistic framework and system.
That will make it merely linguistically true.

Say,
'Water is H20' which is ONLY linguistically true as conditioned within a human-based English framework and system [FS], but that is not sufficiently true, unless it is qualified to be contingent upon a science-chemistry FS.
'Water is H20' as a linguistic fact is insufficient, it has to be verified and justified empirically within a science-chemistry FS.

'Water is H20' is true not because of language but critically it is because the science-chemistry said so where the language is secondary.

So, your "A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true" is not very sound unless you further qualify it to its respective human-based FS of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

"God exists as a powerful entity" can be linguistically true within a theological FS but it has no credibility and objectivity when compared to the gold standard, i.e. the scientific FS.

ALL truth only exists as abstraction within human minds anchored in language.

If you get into a car wreck and your foot is chopped off it is more than merely
linguistically true that your foot has been chopped off, that foot it no longer
attached to your body.

H2O <is> water within the complete semantic meaning of H2O.
It is not a matter of credibility it is either semantic entailment
or direct observation.

Some specific notion of {God} is either fulfilled or not, thus one side
of the atheist/believer debate is simply incorrect about this specific
notion of God.

Truthmaker Maximalism includes unknown and unknowable truths.

Goldbach's conjecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
is a truthbearer that may take an infinite sequence of steps to resolve
into true or false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am establishing the actual foundation for truth itself.

OK.
But your foundation for truth is not that solid.

A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true.

You have to qualify the above with;

A truth-maker is 'literally' anything that makes an expression of language true contingent within a human-based linguistic framework and system.
That will make it merely linguistically true.

Say,
'Water is H20' which is ONLY linguistically true as conditioned within a human-based English framework and system [FS], but that is not sufficiently true, unless it is qualified to be contingent upon a science-chemistry FS.
'Water is H20' as a linguistic fact is insufficient, it has to be verified and justified empirically within a science-chemistry FS.

'Water is H20' is true not because of language but critically it is because the science-chemistry said so where the language is secondary.

So, your "A truth-maker is literally anything that makes an expression of language true" is not very sound unless you further qualify it to its respective human-based FS of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

"God exists as a powerful entity" can be linguistically true within a theological FS but it has no credibility and objectivity when compared to the gold standard, i.e. the scientific FS.

ALL truth only exists as abstraction within human minds anchored in language.

Language only?
What about within a human-based framework and system of
1. emergence and
2. realization of reality and
3. cognition,
4. perception
5. knowledge and description

I shorten the above to FSERC.
Do you have a view on it?

If you get into a car wreck and your foot is chopped off it is more than merely
linguistically true that your foot has been chopped off, that foot it no longer
attached to your body.

But what is linguistic may not be real empirically and physically?
The above is conditional.

Say, a man reported 'I got into a car accident and my foot is chopped off'.
That is linguistic claim within a linguistic FS [W's language games].
But it could be he is on drug and is hallucinating.
How can anyone prove his linguistic claim is true, factual, real and objective [not subjective re one person's opinion, beliefs and judgment]?

It is common sense, but the most credible and objective proof is to rely on the science-general and science-biology to verify his foot is no longer attached to his body.

H2O <is> water within the complete semantic meaning of H2O.
It is not a matter of credibility it is either semantic entailment
or direct observation.

Semantic entailment may not be realistic.
Yes, direct observation [empirical] must be contingent upon common sense, conventional sense with a human-based framework and system of FSERC.

Some specific notion of {God} is either fulfilled or not, thus one side
of the atheist/believer debate is simply incorrect about this specific
notion of God.

There has to be more to the above.
God exists is a linguistic claim within the theological FSERC.
Whether it obtains or not will have to depend on direct or indirect observation within a credible and objective FSERC.

Truthmaker Maximalism includes unknown and unknowable truths.

Whatever is truth [truthmaker or truthbearers] it must be contingent within a human-based FSERC to establish its credibility and objectivity and there is no other way.

There can be the unknown truth, i.e. not yet known but possible to be known subject to empirical evidence to establish credibility and objectivity.

There can be unknowable truth, i.e. impossible to be known by humans cognition, e.g. square circles or God [illusory].
There are deliberated within a FSK which on a continuum basis, is at the extreme of negligible credibility and objectivity.

Goldbach's conjecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
is a truthbearer that may take an infinite sequence of steps to resolve
into true or false.

This is within a human-based mathematical FSERC which has certainty and truth but only as qualified to that specific FSERC. It is meaningless outside the scope of the mathematical FSERC.
It only a mathematical truth but not a scientific truth.

My point;
The truthmaker and truthbearer theory whether minimization or maximization is only valid linguistic but not the most credible and objective with reference to reality.
What is most realistic and pragmatic has to be based on the FSERC-based theory.

[PeteOlcott]

My point;
The truthmaker and truthbearer theory whether minimization or maximization is only valid linguistic but not the most credible and objective with reference to reality.
What is most realistic and pragmatic has to be based on the FSERC-based theory.

You seem to be (as most everyone does) conflating truth with reality.
Truth is representation of actuality not actuality itself.

Many of the experts in truth-maker theory believe that some truths
having NOTHING making them true and are somehow still true.

To the best of my knowledge there are only two kinds of truth
(a) Abstract expressions of language.
(b) Direct memories of physical sensations.

Everything else construed as truth is some aspect of the experience of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point;
The truthmaker and truthbearer theory whether minimization or maximization is only valid linguistic but not the most credible and objective with reference to reality.
What is most realistic and pragmatic has to be based on the FSERC-based theory.

You seem to be (as most everyone does) conflating truth with reality.
Truth is representation of actuality not actuality itself.

I don't think most who discuss philosophy in the modern setting conflate truth with reality.
Most understand the phrase, the truth of reality, i.e. they are separate terms.

Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1]
In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences. WIKI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

So 'truth' and 'reality' are separate distinct philosophical terms, but both are part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is.

The issue is the term 'reality'.
The philosophical realists claim [as an ideology] reality is absolutely mind independent.
The ANTI-philosophical_realists oppose and reject the above ideology, e.g. they are like the anti-communists, anti-nazis, anti-theists [atheists] and so on.
Like atheists, each anti-philosophical_realist has his own beliefs which is not absolutely mind-independent. [can be relative]

My version of anti-philosophical_realism is Kant's Transcendental Idealism which subsumes empirical_realism.

I guess you are a philosophical realist??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If you believe in an absolutely mind independent reality then your truth would be based on the Correspondence Theory of Truth, i.e. truth in correspondence to what exists as a reality out there, i.e. mind independent.

Philosophical realism is grounded on an illusions.
So what is the point of truth [with truthmakers and truthbearer] is such a truth is not really real, i.e. merely linguistically real.

Many of the experts in truth-maker theory believe that some truths
having NOTHING making them true and are somehow still true.

To the best of my knowledge there are only two kinds of truth
(a) Abstract expressions of language.
(b) Direct memories of physical sensations.

Everything else construed as truth is some aspect of the experience of reality.

My point is,
the concept of 'truth' [abstract or physical] is very limited, it is just playing a language game.
What is truth [objectively] must be linked to what-is-really-real. i.e. we need to deliberate truth within a framework and system of truth and within framework and system of reality [realization of reality].

I am an ANTI-philosophical_realist, so I do not believe in an ABSOLUTELY mind independent external reality, i.e. reality exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
I believe reality [in the ultimate sense] is somehow unavoidably related the human condition; it is only mind-independent in the relative sense.

[PeteOlcott]

My point is,
the concept of 'truth' [abstract or physical] is very limited, it is just playing a language game.
What is truth [objectively] must be linked to what-is-really-real. i.e. we need to deliberate truth within a framework and system of truth and within framework and system of reality [realization of reality].

I am an ANTI-philosophical_realist, so I do not believe in an ABSOLUTELY mind independent external reality, i.e. reality exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
I believe reality [in the ultimate sense] is somehow unavoidably related the human condition; it is only mind-independent in the relative sense.

I start from complete scratch typically called "first principles" and reverse-engineer
how key existing conceptions fit coherently together.

Reality is nothing more and nothing less than a constant stream of physical sensations.

We have to be very careful within that language game because losing this game can
easily result in the end of life on Earth.

Whether reality is mind-dependent or mind-independent relies on assessments that
have proven to be less than perfectly reliable. We can know that it is one or the
other or some mix of both. It is probably not neither one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is,
the concept of 'truth' [abstract or physical] is very limited, it is just playing a language game.
What is truth [objectively] must be linked to what-is-really-real. i.e. we need to deliberate truth within a framework and system of truth and within framework and system of reality [realization of reality].

I am an ANTI-philosophical_realist, so I do not believe in an ABSOLUTELY mind independent external reality, i.e. reality exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
I believe reality [in the ultimate sense] is somehow unavoidably related the human condition; it is only mind-independent in the relative sense.

I start from complete scratch typically called "first principles" and reverse-engineer
how key existing conceptions fit coherently together.

You cannot have "first principles" without reference to its specific human based framework and system [FSERC].
Mathematical axioms are only applicable to its specific mathematical framework and not applicable to other FS, e.g. science, linguistic, political, economics, finance, logic and so on.
If you reverse engineer 'first principles' effectively you will definitely arrive at their human-based framework and system and ultimately humans.

Reality is nothing more and nothing less than a constant stream of physical sensations.

Yes, and physical sensations are grounded on the human conditions.
Therefore reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions as the philosophical realists are claiming.
If you agree to the above, then you are not a philosophical realist.

We have to be very careful within that language game because losing this game can
easily result in the end of life on Earth.

I don't see any relevance in your statement.
Every thing is grounded on a language game.
Other than natural causes, the most likely possibility is Muslims [some] pressing the red button because they are not deterred by M.A.D.
Extermination of the human species is more of a moral issue not a matter of winning nor losing a language game.

Whether reality is mind-dependent or mind-independent relies on assessments that
have proven to be less than perfectly reliable. We can know that it is one or the
other or some mix of both. It is probably not neither one.

It is whether reality is mind-dependent or mind-independent that can lead to the possibility of the extinction of the human species.
If reality is somehow mind-related [not dependent] then that give humans some sort of control over reality within morality-proper.

The mind-independent view leaves human to the mercy of nature and a mind-independent god that permit the extermination of the human species on Earth, therefrom they can live in paradise with eternal life [& 72 virgins as a bonus].

So where do you stand?
It is mind-independent truthmakers & truthbearers or mind-related FS-based truthmakers & truthbearers?

[Impenitent]

1+1=2

all unmarried males are bachelors

these may be equally true, but which one actually describes the world?

-Imp

[PeteOlcott]

I start from complete scratch typically called "first principles" and reverse-engineer
how key existing conceptions fit coherently together.

You cannot have "first principles" without reference to its specific human based framework and system [FSERC].
Mathematical axioms are only applicable to its specific mathematical framework and not applicable to other FS, e.g. science, linguistic, political, economics, finance, logic and so on.
If you reverse engineer 'first principles' effectively you will definitely arrive at their human-based framework and system and ultimately humans.

The first principles that I start with is that semantic meaning can be encoding using language
as relations between finite strings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I start from complete scratch typically called "first principles" and reverse-engineer
how key existing conceptions fit coherently together.

You cannot have "first principles" without reference to its specific human based framework and system [FSERC].
Mathematical axioms are only applicable to its specific mathematical framework and not applicable to other FS, e.g. science, linguistic, political, economics, finance, logic and so on.
If you reverse engineer 'first principles' effectively you will definitely arrive at their human-based framework and system and ultimately humans.

The first principles that I start with is that semantic meaning can be encoding using language
as relations between finite strings.

Regardless, you cannot proceed the above independent of [or without] a relevant human-based framework and system [FS].
In the above case, it appear you are relying on the linguistic framework and system which is not credible and objective.
In anycase, it may be valid but not very sound to be translated to highly positive utilities for humanity to facilitate its progress in all aspects in contrast to say, the sciences.

In doing philosophy, there has to be a vision and mission for humanity which in Kant's view is;

1. What can we know [epistemology]
2. What can we do [morality]
3 What can we hope for [1 & 2 to enable and sustain perpetual peace].

Your proposal of truthmaker maximalization is merely tickling 1 thus do not have a significant to humanity's vision and mission as above.
Your views?