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

 Escape Gaming

 AoC Recorded Games

 AoE2HD Recorded Games

 AoFE Recorded Games

 Major Past Tournaments

 Auto downloadedFind »

 Users currently online
Members (47)
»  ebbu
»  kmaro
»  Poxo
»  serv
»  Tiger
»  Zoso
Guests (161)

 AoC Clans Add yours »

 Links

 Ads

Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

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

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:19 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 15:09 GMT » BuLLeT__ wrote:
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).

Thank you!
I did not see the rest though, sorry about that. You have integrity and courage for stating what you thought was true.
I am not saying this to flatter you, but because I think it is true. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a trivial concept. You will have to read it multiple times to get the idea. Descartes's argument stood for 350 years.
Godel's has stood for more than 70. Do you expect this to be easy?
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  JaySquared » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:53 pm

Hey, not an expert on any of this and I didn't read through all of it either.
But you keep talking about how Descartes depends on an assumption, while you don't. First of all, I feel like you depend on a lot of assumptions as well if you want to define an "absolut truth", one for example that logic is consistent in itself. As soon as you start giving arguments for anything, you automatically assume that logic follows the rules of causality and that you can deduce anything from anything. Or that logic is unaffected by time: You assume that because your argumentation is correct now, it will be correct tomorrow as well.

Now my point is, that if we work with zero assumptions, nothing would make any sense and there would be no point in logic or arguing about anything, because the laws may change at any time. Logic and Philosophy doesnt work without some basic rules which they have to follow, in the same way that mathematics would not make any sense without any axioms. And in my opinion one of those rules that we should be able to assume at any time, is that a true or false is present for every statement. Else your whole argumentation would be senseless because we can just say that all your statements are neither true nor false and completely meaningless.
 JaySquared
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Aug 23, 2012
Location: Germany
 1828 (51%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:57 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 15:50 GMT » JaySquared wrote:
First of all, I feel like you depend on a lot of assumptions as well if you want to define an "absolut truth", one for example that logic is constitent in itself.

What is your definition of logic?

Logic1: Anything which leads from A to B. or If A, then B.
Other operator: not. If A, then not B.
You always jump from an assumption or presupposition to a statement of belief.
Does this exist?
Yes: I can reason out things, go from some A to some B.
No: If not how can you ever establish anything in reasoning? You can never jump from any A assumption to any B assertion.

Logic2: When you exhaust all possibly explanations for an event, whatever left must be true(explanation) for that event.
If you also include No explanation, in the set of total explanations.

Logic3: There is only one way to break the above two. ( Not telling any of you about this. Don't take my word for it)
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  abhibasusen » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:57 pm

Its a tough nut to crack..

Yes absolute truth may exist..

Say for example, in real analysis of mathematics, we have the set of real numbers as close as well as open…

Set of real numbers is closed ——- True

Set of real numbers is open ——- True

Both are truth….

Well, it is an example.

May be, it is an example of what you are trying to say…..
 abhibasusen
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 30, 2017
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:08 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 15:57 GMT » abhibasusen wrote:
I
Set of real numbers is closed ——- True

Set of real numbers is open ——- True

You are making a mistake in defining "open" and "close".
Happens. Both are not simultaneously true in math.
If both were simultaneously true, then under mathematics, they would have no meaning.
What you are essentially saying is A, and it's converse are both true. This breaks math.

Remember there is an important axiom of infinity in math. Definition of "open" and "close" depends on it.
(Dedekind cut, or something which Cauchy has done to establish reals, and poor Russell)

Any other doubts?
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  abhibasusen » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:10 pm

What is that important axiom?
Why cannot they both be true simultaneously????
 abhibasusen
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 30, 2017
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  abhibasusen » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:57 pm

Btw
How can you say that "now" is an absolute truth?
Because somewhere someone has already assumed the present. Or may be nobody assumed but it can still be assumed.
 abhibasusen
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 30, 2017
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Euler_ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:58 pm

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.

If it were trivial, would it deserve an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? :roll:
He discusses a notion of truth in an entirely different context - formal logic/languages. It is certainly not trivial,
let alone circular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth#Tarski.27s_theory
These are the list of rules they have to come up with to cover that assumption. I need none.

Read 'It is important to note that as Tarski originally formulated it, this theory applies only to formal languages. He gave a number of reasons for not extending his theory to natural languages, including the problem that there is no systematic way of deciding whether a given sentence of a natural language is well-formed, and that a natural language is closed (that is, it can describe the semantic characteristics of its own elements). But Tarski's approach was extended by Davidson into an approach to theories of meaning for natural languages, which involves treating "truth" as a primitive, rather than a defined, concept.'

Yeah you need none. But your argument has no content whatsoever, and therefore is trivial.

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?


One should not get angry at what is true. It cannot seriously be considered as an argument, exactly because you claim to get something out of nothing (no assumptions at all). You are trying to build a sort of logical analogue of a 'perpetuum mobile'. Of course I know enough to evaluate what you wrote, it requires no sophistication; the flaws are obvious. Even if you had a point, it would be considered to be of no value, because everyone else assumes that it is meaningful to say that something is true (so did Descartes, Tarski, etc indeed any scholar), and thus what you say cannot seriously refute what Descartes, Tarski, etc. said. Your main claim is that 'truth cannot be defined'. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant: Descartes etc. don't assume that truth can be defined, they just assume that a notion of 'truth' exists (but what this notion is we don't know, we merely assume existence).

  30 Jul 2017, 16:08 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
  30 Jul 2017, 15:57 GMT » abhibasusen wrote:
I
Set of real numbers is closed ——- True

Set of real numbers is open ——- True

You are making a mistake in defining "open" and "close".
Happens. Both are not simultaneously true in math.
If both were simultaneously true, then under mathematics, they would have no meaning.
What you are essentially saying is A, and it's converse are both true. This breaks math.

Remember there is an important axiom of infinity in math. Definition of "open" and "close" depends on it.
(Dedekind cut, or something which Cauchy has done to establish reals, and poor Russell)

Any other doubts?

It is true that the set of real numbers is closed and open (this is trivial if you look at the definitions). Closed and open are not notions that exclude each other. Sets are not doors (which are either open or closed). Clearly you are not familiar with these notions. The definitions of open and closed do not depend on this axiom. They rely on standard logic, the set-theoretic notions of union, intersection, and complement.
 Euler_
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Jul 22, 2016
 1751 (59%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  JaySquared » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:08 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 15:57 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
  30 Jul 2017, 15:50 GMT » JaySquared wrote:
First of all, I feel like you depend on a lot of assumptions as well if you want to define an "absolut truth", one for example that logic is constitent in itself.

What is your definition of logic?

Logic1: Anything which leads from A to B. or If A, then B.
Other operator: not. If A, then not B.
You always jump from an assumption or presupposition to a statement of belief.
Does this exist?
Yes: I can reason out things, go from some A to some B.
No: If not how can you ever establish anything in reasoning? You can never jump from any A assumption to any B assertion.

Logic2: When you exhaust all possibly explanations for an event, whatever left must be true(explanation) for that event.
If you also include No explanation, in the set of total explanations.

Logic3: There is only one way to break the above two. ( Not telling any of you about this. Don't take my word for it)


Your post is really tough to read. Do you always mean me when you say "you" or do you switch between me and people in general? I also don't understand your point and train of thought in all of this.

Your "Logic1" seems like a possible way I could define logic and then the yes/no section shows why it has to exist?
Your "Logic2" seems like an alternative way logic could be defined, or can Logic1 and Logic2 be simultaneously valid definitions of logic?
i do not understand what your "Logic3" Part means at all, as well as the paranthesis part, what is "this" and "it" you are talking about? Please help me out, I do not understand your post at all.

Are you waiting for my response on how I define logic before you adress the issue I explained in my first post, or does this post of yours explain everything already?

It does not matter how you define logic. No matter how you do it, you will always need assumptions. If you argue according to your "logic1" you have to assume that this is the way logic works. Same for 2 (and 3?). Like you said about logic1:
  30 Jul 2017, 15:57 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
Does this exist?
No: If not how can you ever establish anything in reasoning? You can never jump from any A assumption to any B assertion.

If you do not assume that this kind of logic exists, no discussion would ever make sense. That is exactly what I am saying about "Descartes assumption" that true/false are intrinsic properties of statements. If we do not assume that, no discussion would ever make sense.
 JaySquared
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Aug 23, 2012
Location: Germany
 1828 (51%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:08 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 16:10 GMT » abhibasusen wrote:
What is that important axiom?
Why cannot they both be true simultaneously????

Prove it.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 
 
PreviousNext

Return to Community Café

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators