A new theory of truth
- Guptanishank
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 18th, 2017, 1:55 am
A new theory of truth
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.
I have a lot of background material to it as well, but unable to post the links since I am a new member.
-- Updated August 18th, 2017, 7:02 pm to add the following --
What do you guys think?
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
With that being said, I would post a retort however I made a post called "Geometric Dimensionalism" before I read, however briefly, your "argument". In this respect any agreements or disagreements we may have would be covered there...somewhat at least.
The difficulty with "reasoning against reason" is strictly:
a) It is a contradiction in one respect.
b) It points to reason as having a dual nature of being and non-being (as a gradation of being).
c) The argument against "reason" exists if and only if there is "reason" so in many respects it is passive and subjective in nature and cannot claim a state of being self-evident or axiomatic due to a deficiency in this objective nature.
d) Arguments premised from an "absence of reason" are usually based upon feeling. However the nature of feeling, being subjective to high degree of instability and flux, still maintain a form of "rationality/ratios" in their structures (joy and sadness are duals and maintain a medianality through "calmness") so in many respect are a very gradated form of reason, yet reason nonetheless.
e) Cannot establish any form of meaningful definition as to the nature of the words for the nature of definition and words (as evidenced through dictionaries) are maintained as a from of reflective symmetry or structure as order.
f) I could go on, however the five established points are food for thought and should give you some points to ponder as you continue pursuing your studies of philosophy.
- Guptanishank
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 18th, 2017, 1:55 am
Re: A new theory of truth
When I say right now there is no point in reasoning it means that there are no assumptions whatsoever at that point or logic at that point, we begin from a point of no assumptions or logic.
Kindly read the rest and reply again.
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
Eodnhoj wrote: I did not continue with your argument so you may rightfully claim I am ignorant of your "intended argument" however, intentions are rarely the whole truth...just grades of it.
Was ahead of you already brother, haha. Upon a fuller reading I agree with your argument in many respects and my "retort" could be argued as building off of, or with, your argument "accidentally".
The nature of this "truth" and "no-truth" I would continue is strictly a reflection of "being" and "non-being" with "being/non-being" as fundamentally space at it's root. I argue this strictly because everything we observe, regardless of it's abstractness or physicality, breaks down to an understanding of structures through dimensions. These dimensions are strictly "space" with the limits that compose the structure being "space" itself.
It is in trying to understand the universality and unity of space that we are led towards geometry as it's root through the point (1 dimensional), circle (2 dimensional, and sphere (3 dimensional) as universal constructs of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. I emphasize this universality of the point as the nature of what we observe as logic in the west place emphasis, whether accidentally or as an extension of cultural intuition, on the necessity of linearism for the foundations of logic (and by default what we understand as symmetry and order).
The problem occurs, and forgive me for giving a very limited explanation of this, in regards to the nature of linearism:
a) an "infinite" line, in the imagination, is perpetually shrinking (or expanding) and in this regard is infinitely curving. It is this infinite curvature with is the basis of the point and in these respects circularity is unavoidable and necessary within the nature of logic.
b) a "temporal" line exists if and only if it is between two points. These two points are in themselves circular and as the line extends towards the center of these points it is "infinite" because of them. It is in these respects that not only a linear progression requires the nature of points, but even an "limited" line have "infinite" possible natures through the points.
I bring up these two axioms strictly because the nature of the axiom is the point from which all philosophical observations are form. Within the nature of the axioms we can observe.
a) That it reflects upon itself, much like a point, to form further axioms which in themselves are approximates. These points in themselves are causal elements with the approximate point both a cause and effect of the prior point axiom. It is in these respect that all axioms/points are causal elements within philosophy.
This approximation, through effect, is fundamentally a deficiency in the original point and in this respect all reflection of points result in randomness as a deficiency in structure. We observe the reflection of the points, through the line existing as a gradation of the point (for the point is the fullness of structure/being) as "randomness". So in these respect all logic, through the nature of the axiom as essentially a spatial element, is fundamentally a duality of causality (point) and randomness (linearism) with this duality culminating in the third nature as the "Reflection."
b) This nature of the point maintaining it's stability through Reflection as "the point", in itself manifests an approximation point through self-reflection as Relativity. Relativity is logistic flux for each axiom, as an extension of the universal axiom/point, is a gradation in both quantity and quality. In is in these respects that all axioms, as logistic particles/fractals, manifest further logistic particles through relation. These particles, as defined through actual particle relations in turn manifest definition under their potential relations so what we understand from the nature of the axiom as a "Relative"
breaks down to a further dual of actual axioms/particles and potential axioms/particles.
It is in these respect that Logic as Relative is a in a continuous state of flux.
C) Now if we are to step back further, we can observe the nature of the axiom as being dualistic in nature as "Reflective/stable/unitive" and "Relative/fluxing/gradient". This dualistic nature of the axiom manifests a third point as "Composite" logic through "synthesis". The Reflection of Relation, and the Relation of Reflection, both as points is further mediated or centered under the nature of the synthesis. This synthesis of
axioms, through the nature of Logic, results in the Dimensional Limits of the axiom that allow for the maintenance and propogation of structure for without limits their is no "space" or "being". In a simultaneous respect these limits, as spaces themselves manifest "Possible Natures (or Possible Dimensional LImits" for space itself is infinite. In these respects we can observe Logic as the synthesis of points and lines for all points/axioms
are in themselves and infinite number of points (just as the circle is an infinite number of points composing one point as infinity) with these infinite points manifesting an infinite number of lines.
Under Synthesis the Dimensional limit would be synonymous with the point and the possible natures (possible points) would be synonymous with the line. In these respects what we understand of being/truth breaks down to the spatial properties of geometry which can be extended further into the nature of Number (for unity, or the point, is in itself 1. 1 reflects upons itself to maintain 1 while simultaneously creating and approximate 2, etc....ad infinitum (which is in itself 1)).
In these respects Synthesis is the formation of axioms as "Reflective/Relative", "stable/fluxing", [causal/random]/[actual/potential] as Dimensional Limits and Possible natures.
D) In summary, to build off what you wrote logic breaks down to:
1)Reflection
a) causality
b) randomness
c) stability
2)Relativity
a) actual particles
b) potential particles
c) flux
3)Synthesis
a) dimensional limits
b) possible natures
c) stability/flux (or maybe neutrality as a possible term? I have to think on it) as the axiom.
4) The nature of the point and line through these through Points, with the culmination of Logic fundamentally being an expression of Pi.
E) So what we we understand of logic really breaks down to an understanding of Pi with the "3" (as a three points) being equivalent to the "Reflective/Relative/synthetic" natures of the point manifesting in all other numbers/spaces under .14159... So when one approaches the nature of logic, one is simultaneously approaching the nature of the geometry as spatial structures (which in themselves are number) which is in itself being.
I hope this give some food for thought, and I apologize for the poor examples and explanation but I am trying to "cram" alot of information in a few pages to prove further that you are "correct" however need need to work more on the expression because you actually know more than you are expressing through the nature of your "form" of thought. In simpler terms the process of "reflection" you are using is correct and has alot of value held within it if you continue practice. This is assuming I read what you wrote correctly and have not "projected" my viewpoints further into it.
After reading what you wrote, you are correct, but part of "correctness" is further propogation of knowledge for progogation (relative to the time
and space we perceive and from which knowledge lends itself) is stability.
- Guptanishank
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 18th, 2017, 1:55 am
Re: A new theory of truth
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
Guptanishank wrote:I am sorry, I meant to argue on logic, you are correlating things to a completely different set.
And what is logic but symmetry and symmetry but space? If you break words down to their common root, what "really" unifies them what do you get but "space"?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: A new theory of truth
The truth is defined by the language.
"All humans are mortal. I am human, therefore I am mortal."
That is a "truth" defined by the proposition. Truths are necessarily propositional. The problem is confusing the idea of a practical truth with an abstract truth.
I have not read your full OP. This is because I already know that what you are doing is not creating a "new theory of truth", but merely using the term "truth" to fit your means. The meaning of a term is in how we use it (as Wittgenstein says.)
I am currently self-studying math/logic/linguistics. It is a very interesting field.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
- The Beast
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
The book is a name and not a description. Yet, your pattern recognition makes a judgement of book. And so, the pattern recognition is subject to evolution and change and therefore the judgement of book might include Steeles. Moreover, the two dimensional is now moving in the time dimension. If we combine the results then the truth can be seen changing along the space-time dimension. One can argue that what changes is the name book given by the attributes of the elements that change little. In truth, I see a book on the table: ‘Applying data structures’ . For a bat, the recognition pattern might be one of object/soft to make a deposit. In the case of a blind person with multiple degrees and who is never seen or heard of a book, it is an antiquated roll of bathroom paper. If a blind person is human then we have the first case of millianism. I see a book: it is even shorter. Any predicates…foolishness. I believe.
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
Burning ghost wrote:The meaning of a term is in how we use it (as Wittgenstein says.)
I am currently self-studying math/logic/linguistics. It is a very interesting field.
If we look at the nature of "meaning", from the perspective of language, we get the root word "mean" which is an approximate of mathematical mean, center, median, middle, etc. The nature of meaning, by its very nature observes a geometric construct to reality in this respect through the nature of the "point" (and by the nature of "geometric" I mean, pardon the pun, spatial properties).
I would argue, and you can see part of my argument on the "meaning of life thread" (around page 75 or so) and "geometric dimensionalism", that all structures (both abstract and physical) break down to spatial properties. This includes language.
Currently I am trying to get published, in the hopes of getting some form of scholarship/ acceptance in a master's program, a whole set of papers on this subject. Language, as an extension of logic, breaks down to its root as a spatial structure and in these respects it shares similiar laws to other properties (math and physics) that observe spatial properties. Logic, I would argue, as a study of symmetry is a study of spatial structures for the study of spatial structures is symmetry.
It breaks down to the nature of the point and line at the end of the day.
You are also right about the study of math/logic/linguistics, it is an very interesting subject. Worlds are created and destroyed through language.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: A new theory of truth
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023