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

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

I need more information.

:-k

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.

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.

That doesn’t seem to be the case - not “Truth”.

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

Was that all you were trying to do? :confused:

I’m starting to feel like Trump –
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I[/youtube]

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

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?

The square peg fits the square hole.

:smiley:

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