Truthmaker Maximalism is established

[PeteOlcott]

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?

The only point that I am making here is that there cannot be any expression of language that is true without some physical or conceptual thing making it true.

[PeteOlcott]

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?

If we don't even definitely know exactly what truth itself is
then we can't do much of anything about anything else.

My purpose is to fully establish exactly what truth itself is by
starting with truthmaker maximalism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

If we don't even definitely know exactly what truth itself is
then we can't do much of anything about anything else.

My purpose is to fully establish exactly what truth itself is by
starting with truthmaker maximalism.

There are no absolute unconditional truths.

I have stated, my definition of truth [reality, fact, knowledge, objectivity,] is;
what is truth is contingent upon a specific collective human-based framework and system of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

In this case, you cannot deny the human-based scientific FS has generated scientific truths [at best polished conjectures].
At present, scientific truths [conditional upon its human-based FS] is the most credible & objective and such truth has contributed significant net-positives [also potential negativity] to the progress of humanity.

Other truths from FS_s of lesser credibility and objectivity had also contributed to the progress of humanity, e.g. the FS of economics, finance, accounting, psychology, politics, legal, social and others.

What had or can your truthmaker-maximalism contribute to the progress of humanity?
At most they are merely linguistic statements without any significant utility to the progress of humanity.

[PeteOlcott]

What had or can your truthmaker-maximalism contribute to the progress of humanity?
At most they are merely linguistic statements without any significant utility to the progress of humanity.

First of all and most importantly is provides the objective basis for dividing
dangerous lies from truth. Without such a basis humanity could be annihilated
by mistaking Putin's land-grab as somehow justified.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What had or can your truthmaker-maximalism contribute to the progress of humanity?
At most they are merely linguistic statements without any significant utility to the progress of humanity.

First of all and most importantly is provides the objective basis for dividing
dangerous lies from truth. Without such a basis humanity could be annihilated
by mistaking Putin's land-grab as justified.

I do not agree with the 100% black or 100% white, Law of the Excluded Middle.

Whatever the claim of truth we can compare the basis of the specific FS to the scientific FSK as gold standard.
In the case of Putin's claim, we can contrast it [Putin-political-FS] with the scientific FS to grade on its degree of truth, credibility and objectivity.

Take for example the claim of 'truth' by theists, theists claim it is absolute true God exists as real.
To know the degree of truth, credibility and objectivity of the theistic-FS, we compare it to the scientific FS based on various rationally acceptable criteria.
In this case, if the scientific FS's degree of truth and objectivity is indexed at 100 as the standard, the resulting degree of truth of the theistic-FS is likely to be, say, 5/100 at best or at worst 0.001/100 due to the lack of the critical empirical evidences to support its claim.

We can do the above exercise of comparison with all other claims of 'truths' from whatever the sources.

To me, a lie is a contradictions within the specific FS.
If a specific FS state Y it true but one claim on condition of that FS, X it true, then that is a lie in reference to the specific FS.
E.g. it is true Water is H20 within the science-chemistry FS, it would be a lie [untruth] to insist the science-chemistry FS claim water is Fe2O.

[PeteOlcott]

I do not agree with the 100% black or 100% white, Law of the Excluded Middle.

Whatever the claim of truth we can compare the basis of the specific FS to the scientific FSK as gold standard.
In the case of Putin's claim, we can contrast it [Putin-political-FS] with the scientific FS to grade on its degree of truth, credibility and objectivity.

Take for example the claim of 'truth' by theists, theists claim it is absolute true God exists as real.
To know the degree of truth, credibility and objectivity of the theistic-FS, we compare it to the scientific FS based on various rationally acceptable criteria.
In this case, if the scientific FS's degree of truth and objectivity is indexed at 100 as the standard, the resulting degree of truth of the theistic-FS is likely to be, say, 5/100 at best or at worst 0.001/100 due to the lack of the critical empirical evidences to support its claim.

We can do the above exercise of comparison with all other claims of 'truths' from whatever the sources.

Expressions of language are true or false or neither.
"a bowl of cereal" is neither. Whether an expression is true or not
has nothing to do with beliefs unless it is said that X believes Y.

Some notion of God is fulfilled or not and people either have this correctly or not.
Moral things such as Putin's land-grab get into a more gray area.

I always rely on consequentialism as the ultimate measure. If Putin's land grab
results in the end of life on Earth then it was wrong no matter what else.

The most important thing that is a key basis that math and logic seem
to get incorrectly is that every expression either has some physical or
conceptual thing making it true or it is proven untrue on this basis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do not agree with the 100% black or 100% white, Law of the Excluded Middle.

Whatever the claim of truth we can compare the basis of the specific FS to the scientific FSK as gold standard.
In the case of Putin's claim, we can contrast it [Putin-political-FS] with the scientific FS to grade on its degree of truth, credibility and objectivity.

Take for example the claim of 'truth' by theists, theists claim it is absolute true God exists as real.
To know the degree of truth, credibility and objectivity of the theistic-FS, we compare it to the scientific FS based on various rationally acceptable criteria.
In this case, if the scientific FS's degree of truth and objectivity is indexed at 100 as the standard, the resulting degree of truth of the theistic-FS is likely to be, say, 5/100 at best or at worst 0.001/100 due to the lack of the critical empirical evidences to support its claim.

We can do the above exercise of comparison with all other claims of 'truths' from whatever the sources.

Expressions of language are true or false or neither.
"a bowl of cereal" is neither. Whether an expression is true or not
has nothing to do with beliefs unless it is said that X believes Y.

Some notion of God is fulfilled or not and people either have this correctly or not.
Moral things such as Putin's land-grab get into a more gray area.

I always rely on consequentialism as the ultimate measure. If Putin's land grab
results in the end of life on Earth then it was wrong no matter what else.

The most important thing that is a key basis that math and logic seem
to get incorrectly is that every expression either has some physical or
conceptual thing making it true or it is proven untrue on this basis.

You don't seem to understand [not agree] with my point.

"Expressions of language are true or false or neither."
Whatever is an expression of language is merely a linguistic fact with a linguistic FS which has low credibility and objectivity in relation to reality.
That 'water is H20' because my father said so, is meaningless unless it is qualified to the science-chemistry FS.
It should be 'water is H20' if and only if the science-chemistry FS said so.
Generally, the qualification is not expressed but it is implied.

As such, to be rigorous as needed within refined philosophy, we must always determine what a claim is qualified to which FS and then assess whether the qualified FS is credible or objective in contrast to the scientific FS as the gold standard.

Putin's land grab is not a moral issue within morality-proper.
It is a political issue which need to be referenced to Russian-FS, the ICJ-FS or it ultimately has to be settled by war, e.g. elimination of the Nazis, ISIS or HAMAS.

My point is,
whenever the question of truth is raised we need to qualify truth to a framework and system [FS] of truth then contrast it with the scientific FS as the gold standard.
Even when the scientific FS has its limitations [merely polished conjectures] it is the best standard of truth [facts, reality, knowledge and objectivity] at present.

Your truthmaker maximization do not have any grounds, credibility nor objective for truth [alignment with reality].
If so, where and how?

[PeteOlcott]

My point is,
whenever the question of truth is raised we need to qualify truth to a framework and system [FS] of truth then contrast it with the scientific FS as the gold standard.
Even when the scientific FS has its limitations [merely polished conjectures] it is the best standard of truth [facts, reality, knowledge and objectivity] at present.

Your truthmaker maximization do not have any grounds, credibility nor objective for truth [alignment with reality].
If so, where and how?

The body of truth that I am referring to has nothing to do with credibility
It is not very believable that {cats} <are> {animals} it is an immutable fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is,
whenever the question of truth is raised we need to qualify truth to a framework and system [FS] of truth then contrast it with the scientific FS as the gold standard.
Even when the scientific FS has its limitations [merely polished conjectures] it is the best standard of truth [facts, reality, knowledge and objectivity] at present.

Your truthmaker maximization do not have any grounds, credibility nor objective for truth [alignment with reality].
If so, where and how?

The body of truth that I am referring to has nothing to do with credibility
It is not very believable that {cats} <are> {animals} it is an immutable fact.

Not too sure of your point??
If I guess you point as,

{cats} <are> {animals} is because the science-biology FS said so.
Since scientific truths are merely polished conjecture, the above is at best a polished conjecture and cannot be immutable regardless being labelled a 'fact'.
There is no absolute certainty with science and it is possible for the
scientific fact "{cats} <are> {animals}" to be changed in the future.

Note the case,
Pluto as one of the 9 planets which was changed to
Pluto is a dwarf planet, so there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Over the history of science, many once seemingly secured scientific facts has been changed, revised or abandon upon new evidences.

Your truthmaker maximization alone is not very sound without a qualification to a specific human-based framework and system.

[PeteOlcott]

Not too sure of your point??
If I guess you point as,

{cats} <are> {animals} is because the science-biology FS said so.
Since scientific truths are merely polished conjecture, the above is at best a polished conjecture and cannot be immutable regardless being labelled a 'fact'.
There is no absolute certainty with science and it is possible for the
scientific fact "{cats} <are> {animals}" to be changed in the future.

Note the case,
Pluto as one of the 9 planets which was changed to
Pluto is a dwarf planet, so there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Over the history of science, many once seemingly secured scientific facts has been changed, revised or abandon upon new evidences.

Your truthmaker maximization alone is not very sound without a qualification to a specific human-based framework and system.

The foundation of expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} is
their connection to their definition of their meaning as connections to other
expressions.

When I say {cats} <are> {animals} you can only understand what I am
saying because {cats} and {animals} refer to their definitions.

If I said {bezoogle} <nefin> {partlockamu} you could not understand
what I say because those terms do not have predefined meanings.

The only way that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings ever acquire any
meaning what-so-ever is that meaning is assigned to them. That is the ultimate
foundation of every expression that is {true on the basis of its meaning}.

The accurate verbal model of the actual world <is> the ultimate foundation
of every expression that is {true on the basis of its meaning}.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not too sure of your point??
If I guess you point as,

{cats} <are> {animals} is because the science-biology FS said so.
Since scientific truths are merely polished conjecture, the above is at best a polished conjecture and cannot be immutable regardless being labelled a 'fact'.
There is no absolute certainty with science and it is possible for the
scientific fact "{cats} <are> {animals}" to be changed in the future.

Note the case,
Pluto as one of the 9 planets which was changed to
Pluto is a dwarf planet, so there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Over the history of science, many once seemingly secured scientific facts has been changed, revised or abandon upon new evidences.

Your truthmaker maximization alone is not very sound without a qualification to a specific human-based framework and system.

The foundation of expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} is
their connection to their definition of their meaning as connections to other
expressions.

When I say {cats} <are> {animals} you can only understand what I am
saying because {cats} and {animals} refer to their definitions.

If I said {bezoogle} <nefin> {partlockamu} you could not understand
what I say because those terms do not have predefined meanings.

The only way that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings ever acquire any
meaning what-so-ever is that meaning is assigned to them. That is the ultimate
foundation of every expression that is {true on the basis of its meaning}.

The accurate verbal model of the actual world <is> the ultimate foundation
of every expression that is {true on the basis of its meaning}.

My point is meaning is contingent on a specific human-based framework and system [FS] which Wittgenstein correlate with his 'language games'.
Where meaning are assigned [predefined based on "meaning is use"] to words there is a need for specific rules, procedures and processes for specific linguistic FS.

But meanings do not relate to reality unless contingent upon a human-based framework and system of realization of reality.
"God is omnipotent" has meaning [check the dictionary] but God cannot be real [it is illusory] because it does not satisfy the requirements of the framework and system of reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of the degree of realness.

So, your truthmaker maximization merely maximize the linguistic elements and meanings but not the realness element [& truth of realness] which is most critical for the progress of humanity.

[PeteOlcott]

My point is meaning is contingent on a specific human-based framework and system [FS] which Wittgenstein correlate with his 'language games'.
Where meaning are assigned [predefined based on "meaning is use"] to words there is a need for specific rules, procedures and processes for specific linguistic FS.

But meanings do not relate to reality unless contingent upon a human-based framework and system of realization of reality.
"God is omnipotent" has meaning [check the dictionary] but God cannot be real [it is illusory] because it does not satisfy the requirements of the framework and system of reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of the degree of realness.

So, your truthmaker maximization merely maximize the linguistic elements and meanings but not the realness element [& truth of realness] which is most critical for the progress of humanity.

You don't seem to actually mean contingent in the typical sense:
occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

A person that does not know how to talk can {eat a sandwich}.
The act of {eating a sandwich} can be and is encoded as finite strings.

When a person is actually {eating a sandwich} this can be and is
encoded in many different sets of finite strings of the different
human languages.

That you seem to deny that there is such a thing as truth is
the exact kind of belief system against the actual facts that
very likely will eventually end all life on Earth.

[Consul]

There are no absolute unconditional truths.

Is this sentence an absolute unconditional truth?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no absolute unconditional truths.

Is this sentence an absolute unconditional truth?

If you look at the whole context of my point;
There are no absolute unconditional truths;
whatever is truth, reality, fact, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon a human-based framework and system; of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.
Because it is human-based whatever that follow cannot be absolutely unconditional.

See: Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is meaning is contingent on a specific human-based framework and system [FS] which Wittgenstein correlate with his 'language games'.
Where meaning are assigned [predefined based on "meaning is use"] to words there is a need for specific rules, procedures and processes for specific linguistic FS.

But meanings do not relate to reality unless contingent upon a human-based framework and system of realization of reality.
"God is omnipotent" has meaning [check the dictionary] but God cannot be real [it is illusory] because it does not satisfy the requirements of the framework and system of reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of the degree of realness.

So, your truthmaker maximization merely maximize the linguistic elements and meanings but not the realness element [& truth of realness] which is most critical for the progress of humanity.

You don't seem to actually mean contingent in the typical sense:
occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

A person that does not know how to talk can {eat a sandwich}.
The act of {eating a sandwich} can be and is encoded as finite strings.

When a person is actually {eating a sandwich} this can be and is
encoded in many different sets of finite strings of the different
human languages.

I do not prefer to use the term 'dependent' because it can be very misleading on first glance.
Contingent in my case means cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
This is in opposition to the claims of Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

That you seem to deny that there is such a thing as truth is
the exact kind of belief system against the actual facts that
very likely will eventually end all life on Earth.

Where did I deny that there is such a thing as truth?
As stated many times;
There are no absolute unconditional truths;
whatever is truth, reality, fact, knowledge and objectivity is contingent upon a human-based framework and system; of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.
Because it is human-based whatever that follow cannot be absolutely unconditional.

Show your argument that the above [re truth] will lead to the end of all life on Earth?
I presume you assume some people with WMDs are not deterred by M.A.D so has no hesitation to press the 'Red' Button?

Btw, I have raised more than 300 threads in the Ethical Theory section to argue that there are possible moral strategies to prevent the extermination of the human species by WMDs.

Those who insist upon moral relativism will facilitate the extermination of the human species; since for them any 'moral' [even if it has evil elements] system should be respected or for and moral nihilism morality is non-existent.

I don't want to go into morality here.

My point is your truthmaker maximization theory is not tenable if you do not ground it upon a human-based framework and system.