Problems registering at AoCZone?
You can try resending activation email. If that doesnt work you can send an email here. If you forgot your password click here.
 Main Menu

 ForumsSearch »

 SY Nations Cup 2017

 King of the Desert

 Escape Gaming

 Polaris Series

 AoC Recorded Games

 AoE2HD Recorded Games

 AoFE Recorded Games

 Major Past Tournaments

 Users currently online
Staff (1)
»  robo
Members (58)
»  _KAMI
»  Alive
»  dogao
»  ebbu
»  Flow
»  Hico
»  Manu
Guests (109)

 AoC Clans Add yours »


 Auto downloadedFind »


Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Hang out and relax, everyday discussions, chit-chat, off-topic, wololo
Advertisement from Google 

Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:43 am

Kindly note:

Dear All,

I have found a non trivial mistake in Descartes's argument.
I have sent all of you emails individually, and none of you have gotten back to me.

Right now if you read my argument, all you will have against it are rules. Rules you have pre-defined as to why and how things in Philosophy should be and can be. All such rules are assumptions.

I will not wait in silence anymore. Consider this as a challenge issued to the pre-existing Philosophy in the world. Beat me in Philosophy.

My blog on math and Philosophy.

Please evaluate and judge the content's quality on your own.

Best Regards,

Nishank Gupta
(347) 257 - 8778
MSFE, Columbia University

Kindly note that this has been issued to Philosophy Departments, all over the world.
Last edited by _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:43 am

“ I think, therefore I am”

Descartes says this statement is true for sure, because even if he doubts this, in the act of doubting he is thinking. So he is definitely thinking. And since he is thinking he must be.

Descartes has established a statement of belief from an act of doubting.

But, it assumes that a particular true and false are already present. ( which he can evaluate his statement on).

I am simply saying that the statement of confidence, of something being true, can only be established if you presume the existence of a true and false. Since an assumption is required, any statement of belief cannot be an absolute truth.

Now, if we start from a statement of doubt, particularly:

Is it possible to define truth? Questions by their very nature represent an act of doubt.

We can establish the presence of an absolute truth, which is that it is not possible to define truth. Because everything else is defined on truth, in reasoning ( true and false:linear, in the sense that you can say something not true is false, so you are going from an A to B in reason), and emotion ( registered as true:circular, just felt, you do not reason from A to B).

A question need not assert a statement, hence it is not required to presume the existence of a truth and false if you simply ask a question.

So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,

and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.

And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No

Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)

We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions. We have not defined truth, but we have established the indisputable presence of one such truth.

Descartes’s statement “ I think, therefore I am”, can only be established, under an extra assumption, that a true and false exists. Therefore “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No, is a truth above Descartes’s statement, which can be established under it.

Comment: I can simply go from non presuming the existence of any belief( by asking a doubt or question) and answering it through reasoning and establishing the presence of an absolute truth, because what I have is an argument, which again does not presume an existence of true and false, but in fact establish the existence of one fundamental truth in nature.

Once we have established an absolute truth, we say that it’s nature must be circular ( because we cannot use it to go from A to B yet). Now, we introduce a paradox, which says: “ it is possible to define truth”, and give it a circular definition: “ Truth is that which is true”, This is a paradox or a lie or an assumption, and obviously a circular definition is needed to cover it up. Under this assumption, a true and false exists. This statement established a belief(possible to define truth) by assumption ( which is paradoxical), and anything which negates this belief now “ False is that which is not true”, comes into play under this circular definition or paradoxical assumption.

Once this assumption comes into play, we have made our original absolute truth, which was circular, into a linear True and False. ( can go from A to B by negation now). Now, Descartes’s statement can be established, under all of this.

Descartes has made a basic mistake in Philosophy by assuming the per-existence of a truth and false, thus failing to establish an absolute truth in nature.

This is the beauty of my argument, that I establish an absolute truth in nature first, and then define true and false on it, based on a paradoxical assumption.( which reflects in Tarski’s circular definition)

I am saying that I can start from a paradoxical assumption of being able to define truth, when clearly not being able to define it is absolutely true( think of it as levels in truth values – circular and linear( one extra assumption) ). In this particular case it is allowed to assume the converse, because there has not been any “False” defined prior to stop us from making that assumption. So it does not break any reasoning. This is the only case where assuming a converse will make sense in reasoning.

Godel, uses a paradox ( Liar’s paradox) to establish that consistency(depending on “truth can be defined” and completeness(“truth can be defined”) cannot be determined at the same time, but again assumes that truth and false are defined. I define true and false itself on a paradoxical assumption, which I explain through arguments, does not break any reasoning, in this one particular special case.

Thank You!.

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:45 am

I am under a little stress from all the thinking. If you have some questions, I will get back to you guys later. Promise.

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  _ratS » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 am

can this be translated into english?
Posts: 743
Joined: Jun 19, 2008

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:33 am

Does it look like Latin?
I am sorry I can't make it simpler right now. Some people get it, some do not.
I am not feeling entirely well right now. I hope someone can take it up from here.
Advertisement from Google 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  kw1k000000 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:56 am

  30 Jul 2017, 02:13 GMT » _ratS wrote:
can this be translated into english?

Dont worry. He is just talking to himself on a public forum.
ImageAll hail, the king of aoc! Image

Posts: 514
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
 1657 (56%)

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:59 am

No I am asking for a discussion.
I am saying maybe this is a good idea, and you might find it fun to discuss.

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  Aurelius » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:07 am

Sorry, but this seems like complete nonsense to me.
User avatar
Posts: 661
Joined: Aug 17, 2013

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:15 am

I am sorry if it does.
I feel a lot better now.
Ask. What is it that is unclear?
Ask specifically on this. And I will try to give the best answer possible.

Start from the top.

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:22 am

I will give a little background for those uninitiated in Philosophy.

Tarski has given a cicular definition of truth: " Truth is that which is true"
This definition lies at the heart of ALL concepts in math and science.
I noticed that something was off with assumption a while ago, because circular definitions by themselves do not make sense.
Something cannot depend on itself.

So I build an argument from the top establishing an absolute truth, which has a way to get around Tarski's definition and establishing a more fundamental truth.

I apologize for putting this up so abruptly. As I said I had to think a lot to arrive at it, and it took a while for my thoughts to slow down. I will try and do better now.

Return to Community Café

Who is online

Users browsing this forum:  robo and 1 guest

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators