guptanishank

Please ignore this. I should first go through formal logic.

Yes there is a comparison involved, I agree, if that's what you mean. Orange is compared to a fruit, and the whole sentence with truth. But there is n...

There is no left or right here. Orange is a fruit by definition.

The metalanguage needs to be larger than the object language, and the truth in the metalanguage, depends upon a greater metalanguage and so forth.

This one assumes an infinite tower of metalanguages. So, it assumes a concept of infinity.

Yes, exactly. Great, we finally agree on something. And then, everything can be modelled either as a statement or a question, or an assumption, all of...

Do you mean the relationship between the logic and it's result? Then we do, otherwise I have no clue, because relationship has to be defined between o...

That was a typo. Can be. not can't be. Statements have the property of truth. A statement either has the property of true, or true', which can be defi...

Between what?

Apple is red because it is defined to be red. So a statement can be true if it is logically valid, or assumed to be true(Putting definitions as assump...

But the comparison that you mentioned of earlier varies across languages. One might say the apple being red is true, and apple being red, and somewhat...

Can you explain that term more clearly? How so?

Thanks. But, how would you know if you are not assigning a false sentence the property of truth? The barn is big is one sentence, the barn is small is...

I'd rather just know if I was right or wrong. But, I guess the answers are more clear in a field like physics, than philosophy.

Tarski's definition depends on logical validity as well. For all x, True(x) if and only if ?(x) ?(s) if and only if ? https://plato.stanford.edu/entri...

Tarski also cannot avoid the circularity wrt logical validity eventually. Any sentence he forms has to be logically valid, and what does logical valid...

I think I did get a good enough definition. That particular circularity is impossible to avoid, even in Tarski's definition.

Haha. That is true, but one must seek something in life, and in this one, I sought truth :P

And what may that be exactly?

I am not trying to say why a statement is true. Indeed that is a much harder question to answer. Logic itself exists because intuitively we as human b...

"Trouble is, validity is defined in terms of truth. Circularity ensues." I think I agree with you on this. If you were to define logical validity: All...

I would certainly agree that truth has the property of certainty. Although it's relation to consciousness as mentioned in your post is slightly long w...

No, it's on logical validity that I seek to define Truth on. Forget existence, give it the word A. It would not change a bit. Existence just came clos...

There's a problem on your definition! Universe is undefined. Cannot be defined. False as you say is in relation to true. The problem with that univers...

Made the edit, hopefully it is more clear now.

Yeah, I think though there is no better name for it. I am trying to justify using the same name currently, give me some time. Fine, I will change the ...

The thing is I am not talking about the same thing. There are two truths in the statements I am making. I apologize for not pointing it out earlier. I...

I argue later that this is the best way to deal with defining truth, and avoiding a completely circular definition like "Truth is that which is true",...

Yes, because there is a double meaning. A place where I have been incoherent. The initial term truth remains undefined. I introduce another two terms ...

I do not think I have been inconsistent, maybe incoherent sometimes. I'd love to find out at the very least where I am inconsistent.

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 ...

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 bei...

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...

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...

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...

Corrected. Jesus :) Please do let me know if I made any more obvious or non obvious mistakes.

I apologize, my mistake. You are correct. We give abstractions to qualitative and quantitative concepts about objects.

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 ...

How can a false statement be true? That is paradoxical. A statement being false could be true.

It's like giving names to abstract quantities. You might say you discovered the abstract quantity, but you did name it length first.

Exactly, statements are what true and false. Any object that you can observe, can be described by statements completely, by making an innumerable numb...

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 observ...

Sorry, but could you tell at which point? I have been trying to simplify it.

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 ...

No I did not mean to imply that axes can or cannot be arbitrarily assigned. Every object has a separate now attached to it as a property.

Could you explain all of this in a little more detail. I would love to get to the bottom of this. Thanks. I know the model is mathematically consisten...

The problem with that specific definition is that time is not defined for light. Light has no frame of reference, and hence no time or space associate...

This definition/description does not seem to require causality?

By who? It's inadequate to define time. Plus distance is only applied for space. How are you defining distance for time.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/already already is a comparison.