**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!.