Truthmaker Maximalism is established

[PeteOlcott]

Where did I deny that there is such a thing as truth?
As stated many times;
There are no absolute unconditional truths;

It is immutably true that a piece of blueberry pie that fell in the floor in not the integer five.

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

In other words it is impossible to state truth using language when there is no such thing as language.

There <is> such a thing as language thus your point is moot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where did I deny that there is such a thing as truth?
As stated many times;
There are no absolute unconditional truths;

It is immutably true that a piece of blueberry pie that fell in the floor in not the integer five.

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

In other words it is impossible to state truth using language when there is no such thing as language.
There <is> such a thing as language thus your point is moot.

Why don't you assert the more obvious, it is impossible to state the truth if one is in coma, therefore the brain is imperative to state the truth.

Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary. It is the primary means by which humans convey meaning, both in spoken and written forms, and may also be conveyed through sign languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

As I had stated language [as defined above] is just a tool for communication of the truth which is contingent upon a human-based framework and system.
Language is not an absolute requirement of truth.

What is truth is that which aligns with reality.
What is truth must have emerged and realized as reality before it can be communicated as truth using language or other means.

Do individuals need language to realize the reality of their real existence, i.e. the truth of themselves?
Do teams in games and others need language absolutely to win games or do whatever teams are supposed to achieve.
There are many instances of life where language is not a critical role in realizing the truth of reality.

What is most critical is the specific human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality of the truth; language used only to communicate the realization of reality and its truth.

[PeteOlcott]

As I had stated language [as defined above] is just a tool for communication of the truth which is contingent upon a human-based framework and system. Language is not an absolute requirement of truth.

The abstraction of conceptual truth cannot possibly exist apart from language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated language [as defined above] is just a tool for communication of the truth which is contingent upon a human-based framework and system. Language is not an absolute requirement of truth.

The abstraction of conceptual truth cannot possibly exist apart from language.

Abstraction is done by its own framework and system.
Language is merely used to describe abstraction for whatever the purpose.

Pattern recognition in varying degrees is fundamental to all living animals to facilitate survival. It is from the inherent pattern recognition algorithm that enable abstraction, i.e. to generalize from a distribution of particulars.
For example, whatever is a threat to survival could just be given a sound and when the sound [representing any man-eating predators] is heard from a member of a hunting group, all will run for cover and safety.

Does merely making a sound constitute 'language' [as defined earlier]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)
The human brain has developed more, but holds similarities to the brains of birds and lower mammals. The development of neural networks in the outer layer of the brain in humans has allowed for better processing of visual and auditory patterns. Spatial positioning in the environment, remembering findings, and detecting hazards and resources to increase chances of survival are examples of the application of pattern recognition for humans and animals.

It is from this basic pattern recognition algorithm that enable abstraction.

Language is merely the tool to communicate what is abstracted via the basic pattern recognition algorithm.
Language is not absolute for abstraction.

[PeteOlcott]

The abstraction of conceptual truth cannot possibly exist apart from language.

Abstraction is done by its own framework and system.
Language is merely used to describe abstraction for whatever the purpose.

Wrong. Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The abstraction of conceptual truth cannot possibly exist apart from language.

Abstraction is done by its own framework and system.
Language is merely used to describe abstraction for whatever the purpose.

Wrong. Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

Your main argument is language is an absolute requirement for the truth [that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.].
I countered language is not an absolute requirement to realize, know and describe the truth.

Now you are diverting to 'abstraction' in relation to conceptual truth.

I agree with you that whatever is claimed as a linguistic truth within a linguistic framework and system require language analytically, i.e. implied and the words used therein are concepts and abstraction.

I have countered to, realize, know and describe the truth, we can also use images, arts, koans, signs and other non-linguistic elements.
It is said, a picture is worth a thousand words [within a language] with reference to realizing and knowing the truth

As I had stated, the truthmaker theory and language is a best useful tools to communicate truth within its specific framework and system but most importantly it does not represent reality absolutely.

That the square root of nine is 3 is a mathematical truth based on mathematical language [equations] which must be qualified within a human-based mathematical framework and system.
√9 = 3 cannot stand on its own without the explicit or implicit qualification to its specific human-based mathematical framework and system.

Whatever the truth, it is conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system.

[Skepdick]

This is the ultimate foundation of all truth.

Your "foundation" is unfounded and is thus rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well- ... set_theory

The theory of non-well-founded sets has been applied in the logical modelling of non-terminating computational processes in computer science (process algebra and final semantics), linguistics and natural language semantics (situation theory), philosophy (work on the Liar Paradox), and in a different setting, non-standard analysis.

[PeteOlcott]

Abstraction is done by its own framework and system.
Language is merely used to describe abstraction for whatever the purpose.

Wrong. Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

Your main argument is language is an absolute requirement for the truth [that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.].
I countered language is not an absolute requirement to realize, know and describe the truth.

Now you are diverting to 'abstraction' in relation to conceptual truth.

I agree with you that whatever is claimed as a linguistic truth within a linguistic framework and system require language analytically, i.e. implied and the words used therein are concepts and abstraction.

That is great !!! All of my analysis of the last two decades has focused on
expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their meaning}.

This is not quite the same thing as {analytical truth} in that my version
of this also includes expressions of language that form an accurate model
of the actual world.

I know that I have a left hand right now even if
(a) My left hand is nothing more than a figment of my own imagination.
(b) Five minutes ago never existed.

So my original claim holds:
If there is not any physical or conceptual thing that makes an expression
of language X true then X is simply untrue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong. Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

Your main argument is language is an absolute requirement for the truth [that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.].
I countered language is not an absolute requirement to realize, know and describe the truth.

Now you are diverting to 'abstraction' in relation to conceptual truth.

I agree with you that whatever is claimed as a linguistic truth within a linguistic framework and system require language analytically, i.e. implied and the words used therein are concepts and abstraction.

That is great !!! All of my analysis of the last two decades has focused on
expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their meaning}.

Not sure what your "great" refers to?
I maintained that language is merely a tool to communicate the truth of reality.

This is not quite the same thing as {analytical truth} in that my version
of this also includes expressions of language that form an accurate model
of the actual world.

I know that I have a left hand right now even if
(a) My left hand is nothing more than a figment of my own imagination.
(b) Five minutes ago never existed.

So my original claim holds:
If there is not any physical or conceptual thing that makes an expression
of language X true then X is simply untrue.

Maybe I did not grasp what is your original intention.
Can you give examples of your principles.

Note this paper which could be relevant to the above discussion, or not?

Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought
Evelina Fedorenko, Steven T. Piantadosi & Edward A. F. Gibson
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07522-w

Abstract
Language is a defining characteristic of our species, but the function, or functions, that it serves has been debated for centuries.
Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking.
We begin by introducing the brain network that supports linguistic ability in humans. We then review evidence for a double dissociation between language and thought, and discuss several properties of language that suggest that it is optimized for communication. We conclude that although the emergence of language has unquestionably transformed human culture, language does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought. Instead, language is a powerful tool for the transmission of cultural knowledge; it plausibly co-evolved with our thinking and reasoning capacities, and only reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.

[PeteOlcott]

Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

Your main argument is language is an absolute requirement for the truth [that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.].
I countered language is not an absolute requirement to realize, know and describe the truth.

Now you are diverting to 'abstraction' in relation to conceptual truth.

I agree with you that whatever is claimed as a linguistic truth within a linguistic framework and system require language analytically, i.e. implied and the words used therein are concepts and abstraction.

When expressions of language are true this cannot possibly exist outside of language.
There is not much to truth besides a semantic property of expressions of language.
The actual smell of an actual rose is reality distinct from and apart from truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Language is the component parts from which concepts are comprised
and conceptual knowledge cannot exist without concepts.

One cannot possibly directly experience the square root of nine.
One can look at three things yet this is not the full concept
of the square root of nine. This full concept requires language.

Your main argument is language is an absolute requirement for the truth [that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.].
I countered language is not an absolute requirement to realize, know and describe the truth.

Now you are diverting to 'abstraction' in relation to conceptual truth.

I agree with you that whatever is claimed as a linguistic truth within a linguistic framework and system require language analytically, i.e. implied and the words used therein are concepts and abstraction.

When expressions of language are true this cannot possibly exist outside of language.
There is not much to truth besides a semantic property of expressions of language.
The actual smell of an actual rose is reality distinct from and apart from truth.

I had stated whatever is truth, reality, ... is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS].

1. So, "water is H20" is absolutely true as qualified within the human-based science-chemistry

2. Also, 'God exists are real' is absolute true as qualified within a theistic FS, say, the Christianity-FS.

You cannot deny the above language-based claims as qualified to their specific FS.

Both the above relied on proper language to make their claim, but are there critical and rational truth to the above?
Being a rational non-theist, 1 is true, credible and objectivity while 2 is false.

When referring to truth, it is generally with reference to reality.
So what I am trying to show is language is not critical for truth of reality but the credibility and objectivity of the FS is the most critical basis for the truth of reality. [i.e. outside language or language is secondary]

You seem to focus too much on language that you do not have room to cognize the concept of the 'human-based Framework and System' which is similar to Wittgenstein's 'Language Games'.
You have ignored the concept of the 'human-based Framework and System'. Can you say something about it and why it does not fit in with your theory?

[PeteOlcott]

When referring to truth, it is generally with reference to reality.
So what I am trying to show is language is not critical for truth of reality but the credibility and objectivity of the FS is the most critical basis for the truth of reality. [i.e. outside language or language is secondary]

I am trying to provide the basis so that True(L,x) can be computed.
Saying that there is no such basis will inevitably enslave humans
and kill the whole planet.

We need chatbots that can make Nazi propaganda look
utterly ridiculous to even those that say it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When referring to truth, it is generally with reference to reality.
So what I am trying to show is language is not critical for truth of reality but the credibility and objectivity of the FS is the most critical basis for the truth of reality. [i.e. outside language or language is secondary]

I am trying to provide the basis so that True(L,x) can be computed.
Saying that there is no such basis will inevitably enslave humans
and kill the whole planet.

We need chatbots that can make Nazi propaganda look
utterly ridiculous to even those that say it.

I am not familiar with your jargons, so, I checked with AI[wR];

This statement is talking about setting up the rules to determine whether something is true. Here's a breakdown:

True(L,x): This represents a function that checks if something (x) is true according to a set of rules (L).
L could be a specific logic system, a set of criteria, or a defined property.
x could be any kind of data you want to evaluate against L.

Providing the basis: This means defining the foundation or framework for how True(L,x) works. This might involve:
Specifying what L can be and how it's structured.
Defining the conditions under which True(L,x) would return "True" or "False".

In simpler terms, imagine you're building a machine to judge baking contests. This statement means you're figuring out the scoring system (L) that the machine will use to decide if a cake (x) is a winner (True) or not (False).

[Question by VA]In the above, it is possible for the result 'God exists' is true as conditioned upon the rules of the theistic framework. Example 'God exists' is true because the Christian Bible said so, i.e. as qualified to the conditions within the Bible.

You're exactly right! That's a perfect example of how the statement "True(L,x)" can work.

In your example:

L: The rules are the tenets and teachings of a specific theistic framework, like the Christian Bible.
x: The statement being evaluated is "God exists".
Within the framework of the Christian Bible (L), the statement "God exists" (x) would be considered True according to the defined rules (L) of that framework.

Here's why this concept is important:

Different frameworks, different truths: Other religions or belief systems might have different rules (L) that could lead to a different evaluation of "God exists" (x). For example, some philosophies might not have a concept of a god at all, making "God exists" inherently false within their framework.

Truth is relative to the framework: This doesn't necessarily mean there's one absolute truth. It just means "truth" depends on the system we're using to evaluate it.
It's like different games with different rules. Knowing the winning conditions (L) of chess wouldn't help you win a game of checkers, and vice versa.

The statement "True(L,x)" is a helpful way to analyze truth claims by making the underlying framework explicit.

I asked further;

My interlocutor made the following statement:

"1. I am trying to provide the basis so that True(L,x) can be computed.
2. Saying that there is no such basis will inevitably enslave humans
and kill the whole planet."

I don't agree with 2. Even with the basis of True(L,x), it can also result in evil.

E.g. based on the above discussion points:
The Nazis could use True(L,x) to justify their genocides of Jews as moral?

Here's AI's response to the above;

Your interlocutor's argument is a logical fallacy. Here's why:

False dilemma: There are more than two options. Having a framework for truth (True(L,x)) doesn't guarantee a good outcome. We can still design a bad framework (L).

Slippery slope: The jump from having a framework to enslaving humanity and destroying the planet is illogical. It creates a sense of impending doom without evidence.

Your example of the Nazis using a True(L,x) system to justify genocide perfectly illustrates this point.

Here's a breakdown of how a framework for truth (True(L,x)) could be misused:

Flawed L: The Nazis could define a framework (L) that prioritizes racial purity and dominance. This framework would be inherently evil.
Misinterpreting L: Even with a well-intentioned framework, there's always the risk of misinterpreting the rules (L) to justify harmful actions.
In conclusion, it's important to have a framework to evaluate truth, but it's just as important to critically analyze the framework itself. A bad framework can lead to horrible consequences, just as the Nazis did.

Thus my point, what is critical to truth and reality is the Framework and System, not the language.
As for morality we need a credible and objective human-based moral framework that will prevent all sort of evil.

[PeteOlcott]

Thus my point, what is critical to truth and reality is the Framework and System, not the language.
As for morality we need a credible and objective human-based moral framework that will prevent all sort of evil.

Let me be much more specific.
A finite string expression of language only acquires the semantic property of
Boolean True when:
(a) There exists a sequence of truth preserving operations from
finite strings known to have the semantic property of Boolean True.

(b) The finite string expression of language is stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean True when assigning semantic meaning to otherwise
totally meaningless finite strings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus my point, what is critical to truth and reality is the Framework and System, not the language.
As for morality we need a credible and objective human-based moral framework that will prevent all sort of evil.

Let me be much more specific.
A finite string expression of language only acquires the semantic property of
Boolean True when:
(a) There exists a sequence of truth preserving operations from
finite strings known to have the semantic property of Boolean True.

(b) The finite string expression of language is stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean True when assigning semantic meaning to otherwise
totally meaningless finite strings.

Somehow you are blind with the critical need of a specific framework and system in grounding truth and reality.


I am not familiar with Boolean Logic:

Here is a feedback from AI [wR] re your point above, I will stop the discussion therefrom.;

Your interlocutor is trying to be very specific about how something becomes "True" using Boolean logic, but they might be overcomplicating things. Here's a breakdown of what they're saying, along with why it doesn't necessarily address the issue of relative truth:

Their Argument:

They're setting up two conditions for a statement to be "True" (Boolean True) using a specific language system:

(a) Chain reaction of Truths: The statement must be derived from a series of operations that are known to always produce true statements. Imagine a chain reaction where each link is guaranteed true, leading to a final true statement.
(b) Definition as True: The statement can also be directly defined as true when assigning meaning to otherwise meaningless strings. This is like creating a new word and explicitly stating it means "True".

The Problem:

These conditions don't address the concept of relative truth:

Frameworks are ignored: Their statement focuses on the mechanics of building true statements within a language system, but it doesn't consider the underlying framework (L) that defines what's true in the first place.
Definitions are subjective: Even defining something as true (b) depends on who's doing the defining. Different frameworks or belief systems could have different definitions of truth.

Addressing Your Interlocutor:
You can point out that their conditions for "True" don't account for the concept of relative truth:

You could say something like: "While those are interesting conditions for establishing truth within a system, they don't address the fact that truth can be relative to the framework we're using. The Nazis could have built a system that defined genocide as true based on their framework (L)."

In Conclusion:
It's good to have a system for evaluating truth, but a good framework (L) is crucial. Their focus on the mechanics of building true statements might be missing the bigger picture of how frameworks define truth in the first place.