guptanishank

This is where you are making a mistake. The past you define as events which have already occurred. Already occurred from where? From now. Every defini...

I would say it is based on both experience and deduction. One does not negate the obvious on hypothetical grounds. The way you are thinking of now, is...

I agree with most of what you wrote. My main issue is with causality. I consider it an extra unneeded assumption, in the definition. I will try and re...

So there must be a minimum time taken for us to realize that now has changed, or the instant has changed. The practical problems do not as such concer...

It's not paradoxical.

No we experience now. The experience is definitely of the past, but there would be no way to recognize the past from the future or anything else if no...

Some details, on Richard Muller's new paper. It's not a theory, but a philosophy. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-opinion-of-physicists-on-Professor...

Let's say an object has been defined under one assumption, vs an object defined under two assumptions, then you cannot define the first one on the sec...

my interest was piqued when I heard Dr. Richard Muller, had formed a theory of now dependent on time, and I thought that it would be impossible to def...

If now is considered as a division between the future and the past, then you'd have to define the "future", and the "past". So you can only define it ...

Can this be considered as a proof for cogito?

The logic is impeccable, if doubt could have been adequately defined.

I apologize, I am clearly wrong. Rewording it seemed to clear it up for me. I just assumed, there could be a possible definition of doubt, which fit t...

Tarski defines truth in terms of the notion of the satisfaction of a formula of LCC by an infinite sequence of assignments (of appropriate objects: su...

It's not possible to remove the post however, correct me if I am mistaken. Could you please read what I replied to Wayfarer? Maybe that helps in makin...

Oh forget about proving my point for a moment. It's just a exercise in logic for now. I am not talking about thinking for now. I have written other th...

The mod, I did not want to spam, sorry.

At least pinpoint why it's absurd. It's not absurd. You are just assuming. You are just repeating it can't be done. Why not? Because it's simple to yo...

No, I am just presenting a self referential doubt. One can imagine it in this Universe as well. I am removing all other elements, to make the presenta...

Then, we do have an ultimate doubter to doubt. I just have to convince Descartes that his thought is doubtful. You're giving a binary level. This is a...

sorry, just a conversation with someone on stackexchange, I can link the question. But if he's right, then the definition is definitely valid. So not ...

I am not sure IF it's with the axiom of infinity or a weaker assumption of the same kind. Truth in the object language depends on the metalanguage. An...

But, why not man? There is no logical fallacy here. Just because Descartes said so?

Yeah, and showing that there is no logical fallacy in doing so.

Oh. That prolixity is circular, someone must doubt something, but at the same time one can doubt that as well through a different level of doubt. Both...

Yes, I know that I have to build a Universe around a subject, and state these sentences in a logical language. I haven't done that part yet. But, apar...

Tarski's definition is valid and very accurate, under the assumption of infinity.

Alright. Thank you for answering all my other questions. It's been a ton of help really!

Please do not take offense. So a sentence in the object language, which one wants to show or define as true, has to hold in the metalanguage as well. ...

And now you see why this "semantic" notion confuses me such. It is not a definition as far as I know, but just a notion. It's not well defined. You we...

I am not dismissing it at all! The thing is that truth can ONLY be defined circularly. Tarski was brilliant and recognized that and still gave a meani...

Oh it is not? Could you give me a link to more resources then? It looks so obviously circular. Something depending on itself is circular. Oh, you mean...

I am well aware of Tarski's definition. It is circular.

This semantic vs syntactical is still a a little confusing. Is there a definition for truth as well? Non-circular?

The thing is I have a very different platonic notion of "Truth". I realize that in mathematics, the notion is entirely different and totally based on ...

Thank you for this. I will study this in more detail.

The axioms are more like definitions? Does the notion of truth then pertain to consistency?(I guess that's what you meant when you said "Every") That ...

So to recap, if I am understanding this right. 1) Every statement has a definite truth value (under every model of the system). This is a semantic not...

How do you "see" this without proving? Mathematical statements can be notoriously hard to "see" if true or false.

But if it is unknown it is alright? And what if it's truth value changed according to the axiom framework under consideration?

Provability and truth are two distinct notions? How would you know if a statement is true without the proof? What do you do with a statement unprovabl...

Well, we discussed that if a statement is unprovable, then we go outside the ambit of the axiomatic system to establish a larger meta system which can...

One thing: I think Math IS an incomplete language. How do we know that the statement we are proving outside the axioms is the same statement as inside...

Even then, as a realist I can argue, that if I were to travel along a circle, I could go on forever. So infinity in nature or reality is not so unfath...

But a computational process, could go on forever? The symbols might be finite, but they are referring to something quite plausible.

But recursion need not be finite. Surely that is possible.

Informal systems?

I did not know that about Godel.

Yeah, I meant how do the platonists who do think this way, think about it?

But the world is every changing. How do they account for that? What if Choice being true or Choice being false shifted in value. That could very well ...