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)
»  _PkZ_
Members (45)
»  ebbu
»  ExIT
»  Gango
»  mma96
»  Nick_
»  slam
»  Xtasy
Guests (106)

 AoC Clans Add yours »

 Links

 Auto downloadedFind »

 Ads

Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

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

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  Genette » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:36 am

"But, it assumes that a particular true and false are already present."

this is where your logic takes a wrong turn. "True" and "false" aren't used in potentially ambiguous ways as in "an absolute truth" or even morals. It's the simple distinction between 0 and 1 in science or simply the question of "existence" (German: "Sein"). From then onwards, your later arguments just take a wrong direction. In order to establish logic (so, any theory or discipline) in any shape or form, you need at least a predefined system including a binary opposition. You can refute this claim ofc, but pretty much 2.5k years of science are based on this principle, so gl with that. In more simple words: "Modern physics is nothing but a set of assumptions of the truth, but it works pretty well for us."
Last edited by  Genette on Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 Genette
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jul 28, 2012
 1624 (49%)
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:48 am

  30 Jul 2017, 10:35 GMT » Genette wrote:
It's the simple distinction between 0 and 1

You are comparing both 0 and 1 to some "true", under some structure.
They "exist" in some logic structure somewhere right? That is essentially what you are saying.

That simple distinction is not so simply and extremely non trivial.

Or even if you are saying that 0 is False or 1 is True? How are you exactly defining them?
You are making a statement of belief which has an assertion.
That 1 is True
And not 1 is False.

How exactly did you define True there?

I am not at all disputing anything in Modern physics or science. They work extremely well.
There is no dispute here. I am only establishing a more fundamental truth, under which all of it works the same, but under one less assumption.
The assumption being Tarski's definition of truth, which I have bypassed and put under a more absolute truth, containing no assumptions.

Kindly consider this as payment for all the wonderful time I had on this site.
I will make you guys proud, promise.
_InDuS__novice
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  Aurelius » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:01 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 10:15 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
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.


I'm not going to get into an argument. If I were you I'd rephrase the post as a question and post it on a forum dedicated to philosophy:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/

Perhaps they can clear it up for you.
User avatar
 Aurelius
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Aug 17, 2013
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:14 pm

Oh it's not a question.
I have established an absolute truth.
I know it to be correct, and do not need anyone to clear anything for me.
I was just trying to get it across to those who might find it interesting as well.

It is an argument. A philosophical argument, taking into consideration Descartes's philosophy, considering Tarski as well, and then coming to Godel at the end.
_InDuS__novice
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  Euler_ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:47 pm

I think, therefore I am”

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

Of course he does. Literally any theory, science, form of knowledge relies on this assumption.
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.

Can you mention a statement which does not rely on an assumption?

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.

So you prove something by no proof at all? Very satisfying :roll:

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.

It's not a basic mistake. It's a basic assumption.

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.

L O L.



  30 Jul 2017, 10:22 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
I will give a little background for those uninitiated in Philosophy.

1) Tarski has given a cicular definition of truth: " Truth is that which is true"
2) 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.

3) 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.



1) Can you give us a reference for the definition "truth is that which is true"? Looking at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth it seems that your formulation is very different from the original one. (Frankly speaking, it seems that you just don't get his approach.)

2) This is definitely wrong. Most sciences do not rely on a definition of truth, they just assume that truth is a concept so basic that it is entirely unreasonable to define it. Rather one imposes certain axioms (such as the classical 'laws of thought'). It is obviously necessary that some terms are left undefined. It is not even desirable to define 'truth'.

As for 3), with
Kindly note that this has been issued to Philosophy Departments, all over the world

Kindly consider this as payment for all the wonderful time I had on this site.
I will make you guys proud, promise.

you have only established a reputation as a crank. gj. You talk about "arguments" but never deliver one,
 Euler_
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Jul 22, 2016
 1751 (59%)
 
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:52 pm

I think you should stop highlighting parts of what I wrote - Not cool

I don't understand why highlighting some of the text will make sense?
You have to evaluate the whole argument.

1) Can you give us a reference for the definition "truth is that which is true"? Looking at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth it seems that your formulation is very different from the original one. (Frankly speaking, it seems that you just don't get his approach.)
A:
What is there to get in his approach? His approach is trivial.
"P" is true if, and only if, P.
So he starts from a point in belief which is P is there.
P depends on itself, and the whole thing is evaluated as true.
Not P is false, if and only if P, would be converse being established.

Or you can say " Truth is that which is true"
Same stuff. He essentially starts from an assertion or belief. But, since he has started from an assumption, he has to come up with rules, so that his approach is now consistent under those rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_ ... 27s_theory
These are the list of rules they have to come up with to cover that assumption. I need none.

2) This is definitely wrong. Most sciences do not rely on a definition of truth, they just assume that truth is a concept so basic that it is entirely unreasonable to define it.
A:
That assumption is a dependency. If you take away that assumption they fall. So they rely on it. Simple?

As for 3), with
you have only established a reputation as a crank.
A:
The statement I have made is " All of what I have said is true"
I have not made the statement " I am a crank". What re you evaluating?
You have to evaluate if what I wrote is true or false. What are you focusing on?


Complaint: You talk about "arguments" but never deliver one
Reply: The whole text I have posted is an argument. From top to bottom. How am I not delivering one?

I did not ask for your opinions of me. Ask about any doubts you have on what I wrote.
AND this is important, Ask Politely.
I could be wrong, I could be right. You do not know enough to evaluate that currently.
Talk like a civilized human being. Am I not speaking like one? Where are your manners?

It seems a little funny that you have an Euler to your name.
Last edited by _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_InDuS__novice
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:00 pm

Little more background on Truth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

"Truth is that which is true"
Is currently the most accurate traditional definition. Others have worse flaws which I can easily spot and pick.
This one is at least valid, even if it is circular and has an assumption.

Or let me put it even all the more simply:
All those sentences and definitions essentially depend on a pre-existing supposition of "true"
_InDuS__novice
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby  Rauschgiftsuchtige » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:51 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 01:43 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:

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.



I similarly don't understand this part. What allows you to answer 'no' to the question, 'is it possible to define truth?'.

What I'm trying to make sense of is the sleight of hand you've used in order to give your 'absolute truth' the form of a question; your claim that not at all questions take the form of a statement is presumably an acknowledgement of the common view that statements (alone?) have truth values, and that questions per se do not. Therefore, giving your absolute truth the form of a question is to express an absolute truth without assuming a definition of truth? What is going on here? Why is the question and answer 'is it possible to define truth / no' and therefore the statement, 'it is not possible to define truth' any less open to the accusation of assuming concepts of truth and falsity than the cogito?
 Rauschgiftsuchtige
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Aug 01, 2012
 

Re: Beating Descartes

Postby _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:08 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 14:51 GMT » Rauschgiftsuchtige wrote:
I similarly don't understand this part. What allows you to answer 'no' to the question, 'is it possible to define truth?'.


Excellent question!

Everything in thought is a comparison.
Logic which enables to go from a point A to a point B.
If A then B.
Assumes that A is true. So you have a comparison with truth.

Emotion is a feeling, which is compared to truth. Your brain "registers"(most accurate word for that in contemporary language) a feeling as true.
Everything is a comparison to truth.

Since in a definition, one thing can only be compared to another. C to D, or so on....
Everything is eventually compared to truth.

Now, since everything is compared to truth, it is not possible to perfectly define truth by comparison to any other thing.
Because any comparison there, will be incomplete.

In contemporary world, they have tried to give it a logical structure, to enable us to make reasoning(distinguish between A and B. If A then B), because it is needed. That is the only thing you can do make sense of things.
But something gets left out, you need a paradoxical assumption to make an absolute truth, to come to a point without any assumptions.

If you do something like what Tarski or Descartes has done (logical structure), you have to assume a presupposition of a True and False. An assumption. It is not wrong. It is a correct assumption. It has to be done the way are doing things right now.
But I am saying I can bypass that assumption, by using a paradox in reasoning itself.

Kurt Godel also used Liar's paradox. I am using THE paradox.
Last edited by _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_InDuS__novice
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  BuLLeT__ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:09 pm

I for one DO see what Mr.Novice is saying here. You guys have to see things from a completely other view, other perspective than from your own ego, and experience(s).

Many truth's of our reality and existence cannot yet be found, seen or heard ( but with some "help" we can expand our reality and get closer to the truth, with meditation, psychedelics and loads of information and knowledge from today's science ). Our small glimpse of reality is under 1% of what really is "our reality and surrounding", thus making us almost completely blind to everything. Bright people would even call our lives and existence and "illusion", which I can agree with in a way.
Our minds are limited, and so are our various techniques and machines, which makes us unable to find "truth" and absolute answers to so many things in this world and especially - The Universe.

One has to read and study, and also find a deeper sense in "life" and existence, and also have a great insight in the co-existence of science and "spirituality".

We are all lacking so many things as a individual, as a race, but we have the power and possibilities to get greater each day, if one wish to do so.

I get your main idea Novice, however, I'm not yet wise enough to make statements about some things, yet. None of us are, actually.

But keep the thinking, theories and "truths" coming, only thinkers and intelligent people can change the world, as it have been since many thousands of years. Without "thinking outside the box", nothing great can ever be achieved.
Nicov_: having to cheat to carry memb is alright

[Eot_]Liability says:
you looked like a god 
 BuLLeT__
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mar 27, 2016
 
 
PreviousNext

Return to Community Café

Who is online

Users browsing this forum:  brizzel and 5 guests

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators