Truthmaker Maximalism is established

[Veritas Aequitas]

We don't need morality to know that you can't take the puppies elevator to its fifteenth floor.
Without truth destroying the planet is construed as good for humanity.
Morality can only be build on the basis of truth.

What is your definition of truth?
How do you establish your basis of truth is objective?
Your points are too shallow and narrow.

Note my points:
There are Two Senses of Truth
viewtopic.php?t=42081

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Every expression of language X that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
is only true when there exists a sequence of truth preserving operations
from its meaning to X.

{cats} <are> {animals} is true even in the case where all of reality is a
mere figment of one's own imagination.

In other words for all expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
we are merely looking up established relations between finite strings in the same
sort of way that we verify that 2 + 3 =5. There is no subjectively to arithmetic
thus equally no subjectively for expressions {true on the basis of their meaning}.

Your thinking on the above subject seem to be ossified to some ancient dogmatic ideas.
Here are some feedback [from AI] on your views of truth and truthmaking which as I had stated are shallow and narrow:

Your interlocutor's definition has some interesting aspects, but it also falls short in capturing the full complexity of truth, aligning more with a formalist view.
The definition focuses on statements "true on the basis of meaning" like "cats are animals." These are logical truths based on established systems (language, logic).

Here are some criticisms to consider:

Limited Scope: The definition focuses on "expressions true on the basis of meaning" like "cats are animals." This excludes a large swath of truths - scientific statements about the world, historical facts, or even subjective experiences like "This coffee is delicious." These truths often rely on evidence, experience, and verification which go beyond just internal logical relations.
Your interlocutor might be coming from a formal logic or analytic philosophy perspective, which focuses on the internal consistency of statements rather than their relation to the external world.

Doesn't Account for Non-Linguistic Truth:
Truth can exist outside language. Scientific discoveries often involve observing and interpreting the world, not just manipulating symbols.

Ignoring Subjectivity: The definition claims there's no subjectivity in "expressions true on the basis of meaning." However, constructing meaning itself can be subjective. For example, "beautiful" is a true statement about a sunset for someone who finds it beautiful, but not necessarily for everyone.

Doesn't Address Falsity: It only talks about true statements with established relations. How do we determine what's false? Is a nonsensical statement like "green smells loud" just meaningless, or is it actively false within a certain framework?

Doesn't Explain Truth-Making: The definition explains how to verify statements within a system, but it doesn't address what makes those statements true in the first place. Does truth come from the relationships within the system, or is there something outside the system the statements correspond to (like reality in correspondence theory)?

Here are some additional points:

Your preference for constructivism aligns well with some of the limitations mentioned above.
Constructivism acknowledges the role of frameworks and human interpretation in shaping truth.

[PeteOlcott]

Every expression of language X that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
is only true when there exists a sequence of truth preserving operations
from its meaning to X.

{cats} <are> {animals} is true even in the case where all of reality is a
mere figment of one's own imagination.

Your preference for constructivism aligns well with some of the limitations mentioned above.
Constructivism acknowledges the role of frameworks and human interpretation in shaping truth.

In other words you fail to comprehend the notion of the semantic tautology
that every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning} is.

Lots of my reviewers like to try to get away with what is essentially disagreeing
with arithmetic.

The ONLY things excluded from my revision to the notion of analytic truth are
those things that can ONLY be verified as true by direct and immediate
confirmation from sense data from the sense organs.
EXAMPLE: {There is a television in my living room right now}.

These are all included in an accurate verbal model of the general knowledge of
the actual world. When a situational context is sufficiently encoded in language
then this augments the general knowledge with specific knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Every expression of language X that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
is only true when there exists a sequence of truth preserving operations
from its meaning to X.

{cats} <are> {animals} is true even in the case where all of reality is a
mere figment of one's own imagination.

In other words you fail to comprehend the notion of the semantic tautology
that every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning} is.

Lots of my reviewers like to try to get away with what is essentially disagreeing
with arithmetic.

The ONLY things excluded from my revision to the notion of analytic truth are
those things that can ONLY be verified as true by direct and immediate
confirmation from sense data from the sense organs.
EXAMPLE: {There is a television in my living room right now}.

These are all included in an accurate verbal model of the general knowledge of
the actual world. When a situational context is sufficiently encoded in language
then this augments the general knowledge with specific knowledge.

I understand "the notion of the semantic tautology
that every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning} is" but that is limited in relation to what is really-real.

Here's a feedback from AI with the hope it will open your eyes [if only there is a possibility for you].

Your interlocutor is doubling down on their definition of truth, but there are still some criticisms to consider:

Overemphasis on Semantic Tautologies:
While semantic tautologies ("bachelors are unmarried men") are certainly true by definition, they don't tell us much about the world. Truth, especially in constructivism, is about understanding and interpreting the world, not just manipulating words within a system.

Limited Role of Evidence:
Excluding truths verifiable by "direct and immediate confirmation from sense data" seems overly restrictive. Scientific truths often rely on evidence and experimentation, not just immediate sensory experience. "The earth revolves around the sun" wouldn't be true under his definition.

Neglect of Subjectivity and Change:
He claims an "accurate verbal model" exists for the world, but this ignores the subjective nature of perception and how our understanding of the world changes. "Cold" is a relative term, and scientific discoveries can alter what we consider true.

Dismissive of Conditional Frameworks:
Constructivism emphasizes how truth is shaped by specific frameworks (physics, history etc.). He seems to dismiss this complexity.

Here are some additional points:

Conditional Frameworks: You could ask for clarification on how his definition handles different frameworks. For example, can a statement be true within a specific scientific theory but not universally true?

The Role of Language: Explore how language itself shapes our understanding of the world. Even "bachelors are unmarried men" relies on our cultural understanding of those terms.
Ultimately, the disagreement hinges on your preferred theory of truth (constructivism) vs. his focus on logical and definitional truths.

You could suggest that his definition might be more aligned with theories like correspondence theory (truth as correspondence to reality) or logical positivism (emphasis on verification).

Btw, you do not address the counter points I provided in explaining why your old school linguistic view is limited, and you keep ignoring them while trying to push your one-tracked dogmatic agenda.

[PeteOlcott]

In other words you fail to comprehend the notion of the semantic tautology
Btw, you do not address the counter points I provided in explaining why your old school linguistic view
is limited, and you keep ignoring them while trying to push your one-tracked dogmatic agenda.

I am only referring to the subset of truth that are semantic tautologies which
includes every detail of the verbal model of the general knowledge of the
actual world.

This is entirely sufficient to conclusively prove that those that claim election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are liars to
each and every individual, at their own level of understanding (language level)
in their own native language.

Likewise with the hired liars that deny climate change is a very serious issue
that must be dealt with immediately.

You have paralysis by analysis. It is like making sure that we have a perfect
cure for cancer before we begin to treat anyone for any cancer. Just go
ahead and let everyone die for hundreds of years before we do anything at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In other words you fail to comprehend the notion of the semantic tautology
Btw, you do not address the counter points I provided in explaining why your old school linguistic view
is limited, and you keep ignoring them while trying to push your one-tracked dogmatic agenda.

I am only referring to the subset of truth that are semantic tautologies which
includes every detail of the verbal model of the general knowledge of the
actual world.

This is entirely sufficient to conclusively prove that those that claim election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are liars to
each and every individual, at their own level of understanding (language level)
in their own native language.

Likewise with the hired liars that deny climate change is a very serious issue
that must be dealt with immediately.

You have paralysis by analysis. It is like making sure that we have a perfect
cure for cancer before we begin to treat anyone for any cancer. Just go
ahead and let everyone die for hundreds of years before we do anything at all.

Do you think what you claim [only interested] will enable instant cures to all the problems you have raised?
What can you do now to change the minds of those who oppose your views?
Point a gun at them?
Kill them?
In any cause, your truthmaking theory is too flimsy to facilitate any efficient progress because it is not sufficiently realistic. [note "realistic"]

I agree there can be fire-fighting methods in the meanwhile but
You cannot be effective without proper grounding [roots] of reality based on what AI had proposed [which I agree with].
The question is how can we expedite the process before the human species is exterminated.

[PeteOlcott]

In any cause, your truthmaking theory is too flimsy to facilitate any efficient progress because it is not sufficiently realistic. [note "realistic"]

As far as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
Truth-maker theory is air tight. Unless there is a sequence of truth preserving
operations from the set of (expressions of language providing) semantic meanings
to X then X is untrue. These expressions (providing semantic meanings) are
stipulated to be true, thus providing semantic meanings to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings.

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

The key example in all the literature that attempts to rebut truthmaker maximalism:
M: This sentence has no truthmaker
is proposed to be a truth without a truthmaker. It is simply untrue (the same way that
the Liar Paradox is untrue) according to the measures that I provided.

GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA sees that expression as equivalent
to the Liar Paradox and I agree. Unlike GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA
I am logically certain that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
I know this because it has an infinite cycle when encoded in Prolog.

Prolog implements the same system of Facts and Rules that my system
uses. Facts are stipulated to be true. Rules are truth preserving operations
that can be used for back-chained inference from expressions showing
that they are true or untrue. Prolog's negation as failure is the same as
my X is untrue.

Applying ONLY truth preserving operations to expressions of language known to
be true overcomes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

[PeteOlcott]

You cannot be effective without proper grounding [roots] of reality based on what AI had proposed [which I agree with].

The brain-in-vat thought experiment and the Matrix series of films proves
that it is possible that all or reality is fake. None-the-less an accurate
model of the actual world exists. Cats are animals even if they never have
been anything more than a mere figment of the imagination or a computer
generated simulation.

Within this accurate model of the actual world there are people that are
trying to overthrow Democracy with Nazi lies and there are people that
are hired liars for climate change disinformation. Thus the arithmetic of
the meaning of words does form the basis for truth that will overcome them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot be effective without proper grounding [roots] of reality based on what AI had proposed [which I agree with].

The brain-in-vat thought experiment and the Matrix series of films proves
that it is possible that all or reality is fake. None-the-less an accurate
model of the actual world exists. Cats are animals even if they never have
been anything more than a mere figment of the imagination or a computer
generated simulation.

Within this accurate model of the actual world there are people that are
trying to overthrow Democracy with Nazi lies and there are people that
are hired liars for climate change disinformation. Thus the arithmetic of
the meaning of words does form the basis for truth that will overcome them.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic in this discussion.

"Cats are animals" is true [a reality, objective]only because the science-biology framework and system [FS] said so. It cannot be, it is true because you [mother, fathers, friends, etc.] said so.

The principle is;

X is Y is true [a reality, objective] as contingent to a specific human-based Z-FS.

The next consideration is how credible, reliable and objective is the specific FS of which the scientific FS [the most credible model of reality] is the gold standard.

Whatever you think are lies, then you need to determine what FS are those claims contingent upon and therefrom assessed the credibility and objectivity of the specific FS.

Example, the climate change claims are contingent upon a specific human-based climate-change FS.
Is is no point accusing their claims as lies.
The only way is to assess the structure of the specific climate change FS and verify, test, and justify whether their claims are true or not.

Astrologers make all sort of truth claims, but the only was to confirm whether they are true to the compare the specific human-based astrological FS against the scientific cosmological FS or other scientific and rational FS.

My point is, it is insufficient to fall back on your truthmaker-maximization theory, to assess truth of reality, it is imperative to verify it via a specific human-based FS and in contrast to the gold standard, i.e. the scientific FS.
It seem you are lazy to think so far or you are not competent to do so.

So far, you have not counter my claims as not tenable other than thinking it will lead to analysis paralysis.

Note, in a court case of persecuting a murder-rapist, your truthmaker-maximization theory will not work effectively without reference to the requirement of scientific forensic evidences, e.g. DNA, etc. from a scientific FS.

[PeteOlcott]

The next consideration is how credible, reliable and objective is the specific FS
of which the scientific FS [the most credible model of reality] is the gold standard.

You don't seem to understand that the whole body of elements of the correct
model of the actual world is a sematic tautology thus impossibly false.

What are the chances that 2 + 3 = 5 is false and 2 + 3 is a kind of dead rat
that has nothing to do with numbers? Is that 100% perfectly impossible or
merely not very credible?