Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

A
#1
Kindly note:



Dear All,

I have found a non trivial mistake in Descartes's argument.
I have sent all of you emails individually, and none of you have gotten back to me.

Right now if you read my argument, all you will have against it are rules. Rules you have pre-defined as to why and how things in Philosophy should be and can be. All such rules are assumptions.

I will not wait in silence anymore. Consider this as a challenge issued to the pre-existing Philosophy in the world. Beat me in Philosophy.

My blog on math and Philosophy.
https://ng2600.quora.com/

Please evaluate and judge the content's quality on your own.

Best Regards,

Nishank Gupta
(347) 257 - 8778
MSFE, Columbia University

Kindly note that this has been issued to Philosophy Departments, all over the world.
 
A
#2
Re: Beating Descartes

“ I think, therefore I am”

Descartes says this statement is true for sure, because even if he doubts this, in the act of doubting he is thinking. So he is definitely thinking. And since he is thinking he must be.

Descartes has established a statement of belief from an act of doubting.

But, it assumes that a particular true and false are already present. ( which he can evaluate his statement on).

I am simply saying that the statement of confidence, of something being true, can only be established if you presume the existence of a true and false. Since an assumption is required, any statement of belief cannot be an absolute truth.

Now, if we start from a statement of doubt, particularly:

Is it possible to define truth? Questions by their very nature represent an act of doubt.

We can establish the presence of an absolute truth, which is that it is not possible to define truth. Because everything else is defined on truth, in reasoning ( true and false:linear, in the sense that you can say something not true is false, so you are going from an A to B in reason), and emotion ( registered as true:circular, just felt, you do not reason from A to B).

A question need not assert a statement, hence it is not required to presume the existence of a truth and false if you simply ask a question.

So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,

and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.

And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No

Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)

We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions. We have not defined truth, but we have established the indisputable presence of one such truth.

Descartes’s statement “ I think, therefore I am”, can only be established, under an extra assumption, that a true and false exists. Therefore “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No, is a truth above Descartes’s statement, which can be established under it.

Comment: I can simply go from non presuming the existence of any belief( by asking a doubt or question) and answering it through reasoning and establishing the presence of an absolute truth, because what I have is an argument, which again does not presume an existence of true and false, but in fact establish the existence of one fundamental truth in nature.

Once we have established an absolute truth, we say that it’s nature must be circular ( because we cannot use it to go from A to B yet). Now, we introduce a paradox, which says: “ it is possible to define truth”, and give it a circular definition: “ Truth is that which is true”, This is a paradox or a lie or an assumption, and obviously a circular definition is needed to cover it up. Under this assumption, a true and false exists. This statement established a belief(possible to define truth) by assumption ( which is paradoxical), and anything which negates this belief now “ False is that which is not true”, comes into play under this circular definition or paradoxical assumption.

Once this assumption comes into play, we have made our original absolute truth, which was circular, into a linear True and False. ( can go from A to B by negation now). Now, Descartes’s statement can be established, under all of this.

Descartes has made a basic mistake in Philosophy by assuming the per-existence of a truth and false, thus failing to establish an absolute truth in nature.

This is the beauty of my argument, that I establish an absolute truth in nature first, and then define true and false on it, based on a paradoxical assumption.( which reflects in Tarski’s circular definition)

I am saying that I can start from a paradoxical assumption of being able to define truth, when clearly not being able to define it is absolutely true( think of it as levels in truth values – circular and linear( one extra assumption) ). In this particular case it is allowed to assume the converse, because there has not been any “False” defined prior to stop us from making that assumption. So it does not break any reasoning. This is the only case where assuming a converse will make sense in reasoning.

Godel, uses a paradox ( Liar’s paradox) to establish that consistency(depending on “truth can be defined” and completeness(“truth can be defined”) cannot be determined at the same time, but again assumes that truth and false are defined. I define true and false itself on a paradoxical assumption, which I explain through arguments, does not break any reasoning, in this one particular special case.

Thank You!.
 
A
#3
Re: Beating Descartes

I am under a little stress from all the thinking. If you have some questions, I will get back to you guys later. Promise.
 
A
#5
Re: Beating Descartes

Does it look like Latin?
I am sorry I can't make it simpler right now. Some people get it, some do not.
I am not feeling entirely well right now. I hope someone can take it up from here.
 
A
#7
Re: Beating Descartes

No I am asking for a discussion.
I am saying maybe this is a good idea, and you might find it fun to discuss.
 
A
#9
Re: Beating Descartes

I am sorry if it does.
I feel a lot better now.
Ask. What is it that is unclear?
Ask specifically on this. And I will try to give the best answer possible.

Start from the top.
 
A
#10
Re: Beating Descartes

I will give a little background for those uninitiated in Philosophy.

Tarski has given a cicular definition of truth: " Truth is that which is true"
This definition lies at the heart of ALL concepts in math and science.
I noticed that something was off with assumption a while ago, because circular definitions by themselves do not make sense.
Something cannot depend on itself.

So I build an argument from the top establishing an absolute truth, which has a way to get around Tarski's definition and establishing a more fundamental truth.

I apologize for putting this up so abruptly. As I said I had to think a lot to arrive at it, and it took a while for my thoughts to slow down. I will try and do better now.
 

UnknownGenette

New Member
Jul 28, 2012
1,227
1
0
aoc.voobly.com
#11
Re: Beating Descartes

"But, it assumes that a particular true and false are already present."

this is where your logic takes a wrong turn. "True" and "false" aren't used in potentially ambiguous ways as in "an absolute truth" or even morals. It's the simple distinction between 0 and 1 in science or simply the question of "existence" (German: "Sein"). From then onwards, your later arguments just take a wrong direction. In order to establish logic (so, any theory or discipline) in any shape or form, you need at least a predefined system including a binary opposition. You can refute this claim ofc, but pretty much 2.5k years of science are based on this principle, so gl with that. In more simple words: "Modern physics is nothing but a set of assumptions of the truth, but it works pretty well for us."
 
A
#12
Re: Beating Descartes

You are comparing both 0 and 1 to some "true", under some structure.
They "exist" in some logic structure somewhere right? That is essentially what you are saying.

That simple distinction is not so simply and extremely non trivial.

Or even if you are saying that 0 is False or 1 is True? How are you exactly defining them?
You are making a statement of belief which has an assertion.
That 1 is True
And not 1 is False.

How exactly did you define True there?

I am not at all disputing anything in Modern physics or science. They work extremely well.
There is no dispute here. I am only establishing a more fundamental truth, under which all of it works the same, but under one less assumption.
The assumption being Tarski's definition of truth, which I have bypassed and put under a more absolute truth, containing no assumptions.

Kindly consider this as payment for all the wonderful time I had on this site.
I will make you guys proud, promise.
 
Aug 17, 2013
671
0
16
#13
Re: Beating Descartes

I am sorry if it does.
I feel a lot better now.
Ask. What is it that is unclear?
Ask specifically on this. And I will try to give the best answer possible.

Start from the top.
I'm not going to get into an argument. If I were you I'd rephrase the post as a question and post it on a forum dedicated to philosophy:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/

Perhaps they can clear it up for you.
 
A
#14
Re: Beating Descartes

Oh it's not a question.
I have established an absolute truth.
I know it to be correct, and do not need anyone to clear anything for me.
I was just trying to get it across to those who might find it interesting as well.

It is an argument. A philosophical argument, taking into consideration Descartes's philosophy, considering Tarski as well, and then coming to Godel at the end.
 

UnknownEuler_

Known Member
Jul 22, 2016
225
195
53
UK
#15
Re: Beating Descartes

I think, therefore I am”

But, it assumes that a particular true and false are already present. ( which he can evaluate his statement on).

Of course he does. Literally any theory, science, form of knowledge relies on this assumption.
I am simply saying that the statement of confidence, of something being true, can only be established if you presume the existence of a true and false. Since an assumption is required, any statement of belief cannot be an absolute truth.

Can you mention a statement which does not rely on an assumption?

A question need not assert a statement, hence it is not required to presume the existence of a truth and false if you simply ask a question.

So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,
and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.
And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No
Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)

We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions. We have not defined truth, but we have established the indisputable presence of one such truth.

So you prove something by no proof at all? Very satisfying :roll:

Descartes has made a basic mistake in Philosophy by assuming the per-existence of a truth and false, thus failing to establish an absolute truth in nature.

It's not a basic mistake. It's a basic assumption.

I am saying that I can start from a paradoxical assumption of being able to define truth, when clearly not being able to define it is absolutely true( think of it as levels in truth values – circular and linear( one extra assumption) ). In this particular case it is allowed to assume the converse, because there has not been any “False” defined prior to stop us from making that assumption. So it does not break any reasoning. This is the only case where assuming a converse will make sense in reasoning.

L O L.

I will give a little background for those uninitiated in Philosophy.

1) Tarski has given a cicular definition of truth: " Truth is that which is true"
2) This definition lies at the heart of ALL concepts in math and science.
I noticed that something was off with assumption a while ago, because circular definitions by themselves do not make sense.
Something cannot depend on itself.

3) So I build an argument from the top establishing an absolute truth, which has a way to get around Tarski's definition and establishing a more fundamental truth.
1) Can you give us a reference for the definition "truth is that which is true"? Looking at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth it seems that your formulation is very different from the original one. (Frankly speaking, it seems that you just don't get his approach.)

2) This is definitely wrong. Most sciences do not rely on a definition of truth, they just assume that truth is a concept so basic that it is entirely unreasonable to define it. Rather one imposes certain axioms (such as the classical 'laws of thought'). It is obviously necessary that some terms are left undefined. It is not even desirable to define 'truth'.

As for 3), with
Kindly note that this has been issued to Philosophy Departments, all over the world
Kindly consider this as payment for all the wonderful time I had on this site.
I will make you guys proud, promise.
you have only established a reputation as a crank. gj. You talk about "arguments" but never deliver one,
 
A
#16
Re: Beating Descartes

I think you should stop highlighting parts of what I wrote - Not cool
I don't understand why highlighting some of the text will make sense?
You have to evaluate the whole argument.

1) Can you give us a reference for the definition "truth is that which is true"? Looking at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth it seems that your formulation is very different from the original one. (Frankly speaking, it seems that you just don't get his approach.)
A:
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.
Not P is false, if and only if P, would be converse being established.

Or you can say " Truth is that which is true"
Same stuff. He essentially starts from an assertion or belief. But, since he has started from an assumption, he has to come up with rules, so that his approach is now consistent under those rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_ ... 27s_theory
These are the list of rules they have to come up with to cover that assumption. I need none.

2) This is definitely wrong. Most sciences do not rely on a definition of truth, they just assume that truth is a concept so basic that it is entirely unreasonable to define it.
A:
That assumption is a dependency. If you take away that assumption they fall. So they rely on it. Simple?

As for 3), with
you have only established a reputation as a crank.
A:
The statement I have made is " All of what I have said is true"
I have not made the statement " I am a crank". What re you evaluating?
You have to evaluate if what I wrote is true or false. What are you focusing on?


Complaint: You talk about "arguments" but never deliver one
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?

It seems a little funny that you have an Euler to your name.
 
A
#17
Little more background on Truth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

"Truth is that which is true"
Is currently the most accurate traditional definition. Others have worse flaws which I can easily spot and pick.
This one is at least valid, even if it is circular and has an assumption.

Or let me put it even all the more simply:
All those sentences and definitions essentially depend on a pre-existing supposition of "true"
 
Aug 1, 2012
150
5
23
#18
Re: Beating Descartes

A question need not assert a statement, hence it is not required to presume the existence of a truth and false if you simply ask a question.

So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,

and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.

And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No

Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)

We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions. We have not defined truth, but we have established the indisputable presence of one such truth.

Descartes’s statement “ I think, therefore I am”, can only be established, under an extra assumption, that a true and false exists. Therefore “ Is it possible to define truth” A. No, is a truth above Descartes’s statement, which can be established under it.
I similarly don't understand this part. What allows you to answer 'no' to the question, 'is it possible to define truth?'.

What I'm trying to make sense of is the sleight of hand you've used in order to give your 'absolute truth' the form of a question; your claim that not at all questions take the form of a statement is presumably an acknowledgement of the common view that statements (alone?) have truth values, and that questions per se do not. Therefore, giving your absolute truth the form of a question is to express an absolute truth without assuming a definition of truth? What is going on here? Why is the question and answer 'is it possible to define truth / no' and therefore the statement, 'it is not possible to define truth' any less open to the accusation of assuming concepts of truth and falsity than the cogito?
 
A
#19
Re: Beating Descartes

I similarly don't understand this part. What allows you to answer 'no' to the question, 'is it possible to define truth?'.
Excellent question!

Everything in thought is a comparison.
Logic which enables to go from a point A to a point B.
If A then B.
Assumes that A is true. So you have a comparison with truth.

Emotion is a feeling, which is compared to truth. Your brain "registers"(most accurate word for that in contemporary language) a feeling as true.
Everything is a comparison to truth.

Since in a definition, one thing can only be compared to another. C to D, or so on....
Everything is eventually compared to truth.

Now, since everything is compared to truth, it is not possible to perfectly define truth by comparison to any other thing.
Because any comparison there, will be incomplete.

In contemporary world, they have tried to give it a logical structure, to enable us to make reasoning(distinguish between A and B. If A then B), because it is needed. That is the only thing you can do make sense of things.
But something gets left out, you need a paradoxical assumption to make an absolute truth, to come to a point without any assumptions.

If you do something like what Tarski or Descartes has done (logical structure), you have to assume a presupposition of a True and False. An assumption. It is not wrong. It is a correct assumption. It has to be done the way are doing things right now.
But I am saying I can bypass that assumption, by using a paradox in reasoning itself.

Kurt Godel also used Liar's paradox. I am using THE paradox.
 

UnknownBuLLeT__

New Member
Mar 27, 2016
33
0
0
#20
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).

Many truth's of our reality and existence cannot yet be found, seen or heard ( but with some "help" we can expand our reality and get closer to the truth, with meditation, psychedelics and loads of information and knowledge from today's science ). Our small glimpse of reality is under 1% of what really is "our reality and surrounding", thus making us almost completely blind to everything. Bright people would even call our lives and existence and "illusion", which I can agree with in a way.
Our minds are limited, and so are our various techniques and machines, which makes us unable to find "truth" and absolute answers to so many things in this world and especially - The Universe.

One has to read and study, and also find a deeper sense in "life" and existence, and also have a great insight in the co-existence of science and "spirituality".

We are all lacking so many things as a individual, as a race, but we have the power and possibilities to get greater each day, if one wish to do so.

I get your main idea Novice, however, I'm not yet wise enough to make statements about some things, yet. None of us are, actually.

But keep the thinking, theories and "truths" coming, only thinkers and intelligent people can change the world, as it have been since many thousands of years. Without "thinking outside the box", nothing great can ever be achieved.
 
A
#21
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?
 
Aug 23, 2012
131
3
23
Germany
#22
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.
 
A
#23
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)
 
Jul 30, 2017
3
0
0
#24
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…..
 
A
#25
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?
 

Time

Your time
G M T
Your zone

Upcoming Events

Improvement Cup 3v3
Thursday 18:00 (GMT +01:00)
Group D: India vs Anvil
EscapeTV Launch Event - Day 1
Friday 22:00 (GMT +01:00)
TheViper, TaToH, MbL & Liereyy on LAN
Improvement Cup 3v3
Saturday 11:00 (GMT +01:00)
Group A: Gurkentruppe vs. A real estate agent, a tradie, a sales rep and a Mafiosi
Improvement Cup 4v4
Saturday 11:00 (GMT +01:00)
Group C: [ Australia/New Zealand ] vs How To Train Your dRoggan
Improvement Cup 4v4
Saturday 16:00 (GMT +01:00)
Group D: Schmetterlings vs [French Community]
EscapeTV Launch Event - Day 2
Saturday 17:00 (GMT +01:00)
TheViper, TaToH, MbL & Liereyy on LAN
Improvement Cup 4v4
Sunday 11:30 (GMT +01:00)
Group A: Team Straya/NZ vs new Chapter
Improvement Cup 4v4
Sunday 16:00 (GMT +01:00)
Group D: [USA] vs Team Schmetterling
EscapeTV Launch Event - Day 3
Sunday 17:00 (GMT +01:00)
TheViper, TaToH, MbL & Liereyy on LAN
KotD2 - Quarterfinals
January 26th 16:30 (GMT +01:00)
Quarterfinals Day#1
KotD2 Quarterfinals
January 27th 16:30 (GMT +01:00)
Quarterfinals Day#2

Age Of Empires On Twitch

There are in total 35 streamers online
Click here for details
Age of Empires II 344 viewers
Age of Empires II 67 viewers
Age of Empires II 61 viewers
Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties 43 viewers
Age of Empires II 38 viewers

Whats new?

Top