• guptanishank
    117
    Imagine that there is nothing around you. Nothing in the Universe. ( No point in logic, I just want to start from a point of no assumptions)
    You have made no assumptions so far.
    (Just asking you to imagine it, not stating that there is actually nothing or anything)

    Now, to assign a property to any object that you might observe, you first start with giving it a first property. We need properties to discuss objects. You need to give this property a name. Let’s give this property the name “existence”. Could have been “pink”, but we gave it the name “existence”, for the sake of it.
    (Any mapping can be seen as an observation). Let’s intuitively explain observation as “link between two points”. In this case all objects are mapped to existence. The links are observation.
    For example,
    The bottle in front of me , exists.
    The bottle in front of me being 10 cm is true is equivalent to bottle exists at 10 cm and so on...

    Now, I argue that truth can be mapped to this existence set or property. ( Set of all such properties of all objects)
    Now, we need to define truth, and non truth or false, to distinguish between mappings you already have vs. mappings in the total set of mappings possible, because the latter set could be larger than the former set.

    In order to define something, we need comparisons. Define A to be x transpose. A is compared to x, and so on..

    So we can compare existence to other objects and other properties ( no other property than existence is given so far).

    Now, if we were to form a question and an answer, or ask statements. Let’s first give the statement: “ Existence can be defined”. We have not yet defined a true and false, but let's assume as such that we will be able to do so in the future to talk about it first hand.
    Is this statement true is the next question we must answer, because existence is the only mapping that “this”, statement has. We assigned this property to every sentence in observation or to any sentence possible, which we could make(The sentence would be an object).

    Questions become a little more interesting. Any machine must be able to solve a problem, and hence we must be able to pose questions to it. Take for example, any command you give to the computer as a question. It must answer it in binary, 0 and 1. It’s almost the same here, but we will generalize it to yes or no. No if it cannot answer.

    Let’s pose the question, “Can existence be defined?”. The answer to this question is no, because to define existence, we would need the set of all statements possible. (We cannot get this set completely because of limited observation)

    Now, we argue that this question and answer statement is the point of maximum existence, or the point which captures the entire existence set. If we argue that “Can existence be defined to any links or mappings which we have?” Since the total number of mappings is unknown, we have to say No to this question, because if were to do so, we would miss the entire existence set. (since we would have substituted unknown number of mappings with a known number).

    Since we cannot use all objects and all other properties to discuss existence, it cannot be defined.
    So a machine, could possibly answer the question “ Can existence be defined”, as a No.
    “Can existence be defined wrt sentence A, or B or C or…”, are also No. (Subsets of the question).
    Note that this set of sentences has a one to one mapping with the entire existence set.

    Now, we know not by definition, but by applying logic, that this Q&A set is the point of maximum of existence. It’s at least one set which has a one to one mapping. Any other set I might form, might have less mappings, but not more.

    Now, let’s define a true and false set.
    Truth is that which has a mapping to this Q&A set.
    False is that which does not have a mapping to this Q&A set.

    This true and false, is a different set compared to the existence set which we had earlier.

    Anyone would be interested in a discussion ?
  • fishfry
    3.2k
    I don't understand what you mean by assigning the name "truth" to some property of an object, like pink. That doesn't make any sense to me.

    Secondly, computers don't answer questions that they haven't been programmed to answer. They're not magic oracles. And Turing showed that there are some questions a computer can never answer. This result is in fact related to Gödel's result that sufficiently powerful formal systems can't resolve all propositions.
  • guptanishank
    117
    The objects will have some common property for comparison. Let's call it truth.

    We can now assign this property to any sentence that we can make.
    The bottle is in front of me is True.
    The bottle is at some distance is True.
    etc.

    Computers answer questions nonetheless. This isn't a Turing machine, just giving an analogy. This is informal logic, I think, and not anything related to formal systems.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    You're not making sense.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Sorry, but could you tell at which point? I have been trying to simplify it.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Throughout. Talk about nothing. No assumptions. Then something. So, something. Then naming something a property. Naming the property "truth" or "truth" as the property, or some other combination of words that I've never witnessed being used in that manner.

    The answer to the question in the title doesn't use words shared with the question in the same sense as they are being used in the questions themselves.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    I have been trying to simplify it.guptanishank

    Here's simple...

    Statements are what's true/false. Correspondence to fact/reality is what makes them true. The lack thereof is what makes them false.

    "That is a tree" is a true statement, if and only if, that is a tree. If that is not a tree, then "that is a tree" is a false statement.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Right, I just wished to pinpoint that we are starting from a point of no assumptions.

    Now, we need to be able to talk about objects that we can observe. So we need to give objects some properties, like length, breadth and height etc. But, first they must have a common property for comparison. So we try and give them the property of truth first.

    I am trying to define a true and false set, based on points in reasoning or logic.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    we need to be able to talk about objects that we can observe. So we need to give objects some properties, like length, breadth and height etc. But, first they must have a common property for comparison. So we try and give them the property of truth first.guptanishank

    Existence is first.
  • guptanishank
    117

    Exactly, statements are what true and false.
    Any object that you can observe, can be described by statements completely, by making an innumerable number of them about the object, with respect to all other objects and you.
    Agree?

    I agree that existence is first, but an object is true if it exists, it exists if it is true.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    So we need to give objects some properties, like length, breadth and height etc.guptanishank

    Be careful to not confuse giving with discovering.
  • guptanishank
    117
    It's like giving names to abstract quantities. You might say you discovered the abstract quantity, but you did name it length first.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Exactly, statements are what true and false.
    Any object that you can observe, can be described by statements completely, by making an innumerable number of them about the object, with respect to all other objects and you.
    Agree?

    I agree that existence is first, but an object is true if it exists, it exists if it is true.
    guptanishank

    The last statement... If being true requires only existing, then false statements are true.
  • guptanishank
    117
    How can a false statement be true? That is paradoxical.
    A statement being false could be true.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    It can't. I was pointing out that that claim logically follows from what you wrote. Re-read it again, and pay careful attention to not only what I write, but what you wrote that triggered the response.
  • guptanishank
    117

    1) A statement being true, could come from description of an observation (existence), or it could come from deduction. It's not that existence is the only criteria for truth.
    2) False statements about observations cannot exist. You can only observe true statements, and then take their converse or complement to get false statements. (not this statement is false)
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    It's like giving names to abstract quantities. You might say you discovered the abstract quantity, but you did name it length first.guptanishank

    Names are abstractions. An abstraction is a proxy; a stand-in. Names stand in place of the named.
  • guptanishank
    117
    I apologize, my mistake. You are correct. We give abstractions to qualitative and quantitative concepts about objects.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    1) A statement being true, could come from description of an observation (existence), or it could come from deduction. It's not that existence is the only criteria for truth.
    2) False statements about observations cannot exist. You can only observe true statements, and then take their converse or complement to get false statements. (not this statement is true)
    guptanishank

    You may want to re-read that until epiphany.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Corrected. Jesus :)
    Please do let me know if I made any more obvious or non obvious mistakes.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    There are lots of false statements about observations.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Yes, there can be lots of false statements, once you get a true statement, anything else has to be false, say.

    But the "false", cannot exist. That you bring existence into question is a little weird though. I only talk about mappings and any possible objects that you could have.
    Eg:
    The bottle will only be at a distance of 10m from me.
    11 m is false, so is 9m and so on...

    Strange thing about false statements, is that they can also be ascribed the property of truth, for example.

    "The statement that the bottle is 9m in front of me is false," is also True
    You can say even that reflects fact.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Truth by deduction is often called "logical truth", and it requires only validity. Valid deductions can result in false conclusions. Truth cannot be false. Validity alone is insufficient for truth.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Only if the assumptions are wrong.
    If you make the correct assumptions, whatever valid deduction you get has to be truth.

    In my presentation, truth is decided by logical validity and the strength of assumptions.
    It is subjective under the assumptions. Objective truth is one without any assumptions.

    So the truth value of a sentence, depends on it's logical validity and the strength of the assumptions it is under.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Validity is insufficient for truth. A logical truth requires only validity. Logic presupposes truth by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses. It aims to preserve that. Thus, I reject the notion of "logical truth". It is a misnomer.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Which is why, I aim to achieve "maximum truth", by using the least number of presumptions possible.
    As I said, under my proposition, truth is somewhat subjective as you say by preserving the truth of the premises.

    Even observation is not without premise. You do need to presume that the world is real.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Statements are what's true/false. Correspondence to fact is what makes them so. The lack thereof is what makes them false. One of them old guys, Aristotle I think, said in like this...

    To say of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not is truth. To say of what is that it is not and of what is not that it is is falsity. Or something like that...
  • guptanishank
    117
    Yes, I agree, but fact can be derived from logic as well.

    For example in mathematics, we say 2+ 2 = 4, is true, under a certain set of assumptions being held true.

    Observations are not entirely so different, when you think about it.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Equivocation is a common pitfall of one who is not careful.
  • guptanishank
    117
    I am working on the language, yes, but I think some things ought to be clear at least?

    At the very least, I already have a few pointers. Any thoughts about the idea itself?
    Could be wrong, could be right, I'd really like to know.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Consistent terminological usage produces meaningful coherent claims. Inconsistent produces confusion as a result of being meaningful on the one hand, but self-contradictory on the other.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.