A new theory of truth

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

A new theory of truth

Postby guptanishank » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:10 am

You can ignore the sentences under brackets, and the word Tarski if you wish to.
Right now there is no point in reasoning - empty.
Now we see from our observation around us, from observing reasoning and logic, that we can have a true and false in logic:
EG: The book is on the table is either true or false.
Hence we have established the presence of a true or false in logic so far.
We have not been able to define them as of yet though.
Now I argue that truth as observed exists under logic earlier cannot be defined, through answering a question.
Can truth be defined? No.
Reasons for the no: Everything in reasoning is an intersection with the true set, or false set which is Truth' or converse.
So to define truth itself we need to define everything else in reasoning. Even if we were able to do that then comes feelings, which are registered as true or false (not felt), in thought. Hence we would need to define all feelings as well.
Therefore since everything else is compared to the true set - lets call this set A, we cannot define set A, so far.
Let's call this two part question and answer set B, or absolute truth, since so far we have no assumptions, hence it must be absolutely true. ( This is constant - C1 under my pattern recognition theory).
Now let's define set A on the basis of set B.
We give the statement or paradoxical assumption: Truth can be defined. This truth is set A. ( Set A is variable under my pattern recognition theory, and as I said I need to assume something to simplify it or remove circularity).
We can do this because we have only so far defined set B above, or established only set B before. Set B has no false, hence this statement breaks no reasoning, since a false cannot be applied to it.
Now we define set A as: Truth(Set A) is that which is true(Set B). Since now, we have no circular definition, unlike Tarski, this does not break any logic or reasoning as well.
Now we can get a set C of false as well by saying: False(set C) is that which is not true(Set B).
There I have derived a true and false, from an absolute truth.
guptanishank
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:59 am

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]