## 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

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

### Re: A new theory of truth

guptanishank

It feels like a trap . . .

Interesting - it looks like it would work the first time it is applied to something therefore it looks a little ambiguous to me. Is it a one time method? That is hard to determine from what you have written and if I make no assumptions then:

Yes, Yes and No

Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
- which is to say there is always meaning.

(gib - 2017)

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself - 2017)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

### Re: A new theory of truth

guptanishank wrote: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.

Truth is a set of thoughts or statements that are ontologically consistent with, comprehensive about, and relevant to the state of reality/existence.

Being "true" means being "perfectly aligned with". One can be true to a cause, true to a map, true to a construction edge, true to a drawing,and true to reality. Typically "Truth" refers to the last of that list, "true to reality" - aligned with actual existence.

One can argue about which statements or ontologies are Truth, if any, but one can hardly say that "Truth" cannot be defined.

guptanishank wrote: 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.

Well, no we don't "have to", but if you are going to talk about it then be responsible enough to define it. Feelings are urgings from a subconscious level to the conscious level. They are said to be "true" when the conscious agrees that the feelings are properly justified - aligned with higher priority intentions. And such is not to be confused with feelings being genuine, a different issue. A feeling being "false" means that the urging did not align with higher, more personally accepted priorities.

Other than that, feelings being "true" or "false" makes no sense.

guptanishank wrote:so far we have no assumptions, hence it must be absolutely true.

That doesn't seem to be the case - not "Truth".

Now I'm wondering where you were trying to go with this.

guptanishank wrote:There I have derived a true and false, from an absolute truth.

Was that all you were trying to do?

I'm starting to feel like Trump --
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25777
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: A new theory of truth

Truth is only truth when you know what it's opposite is, otherwise all things are truth.

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

### Re: A new theory of truth

Yes, truth can be defined, and James' defintion is one way to do it, but it's rather vague, since it does not define "existence" and "reality" explicitly. In fact, it might even be wrong, depending on what he means by these words.
Truth can be better defined as that which is best aligned with (i.e. represents the smallest deviation from) one's personal experience (a.k.a. facts, observations, evidence, etc.)
Truth is in this sense relative. This means different people can have different truth.
Moreover, there can be several different but equally truthful propositions because what is best aligned with one's personal experience is not always one proposition -- sometimes, it is several propositions.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: A new theory of truth

guptanishank wrote:bla bla bla
Sorry truth can't be defined by equations or anything the like. Often a 'result' has more variables so the state of "truth" will change.

Value of an object may change from person to person, so what one calls trash, may be a true treasure for the other.

guptanishank i ask you, is it true that water always boil at 100 degree celsius?
Lump

Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:29 pm

### Re: A new theory of truth

The square peg fits the square hole.

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

### Re: A new theory of truth

encode_decode wrote:
Truth is only truth when you know what it's opposite is, otherwise all things are truth.

Can you give an example from life about what you mean here.
SAPERE AUDE!

If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.

What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel

I learn as I write!

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 14945
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.