Understandable FFFFFF Questions FFFFC0 Notes EEEEEE Software 
Warsaw Workshop on Formal Truth Theories, September 2830, 2017 Truth as the Admission of SelfContradiction I sketch out a definition of truth as the admission of selfcontradiction, and thus as the unique referent beyond a noncontradictory system, that which cannot be hidden, which is ultimately obvious, and by which a statement can be taken at face value, understood without any special reading of its context. In other words, I take the nature of truth to be inherent in the Liar's paradox, "I contradict myself". My thinking here is quite backward! I identify with a State of Contradiction ({$ \bot $}) and then imagine how it gives rise to a State of Noncontradiction (a System). In doing so, I document my exploration of the cognitive limits of my imagination, and perhaps, our imagination. I relate admission of selfcontradiction to Heidegger's "unconcealment" and the orginal Greek term Aletheia, as well as to truth as understood by 4 substantialist theories, 2 deflationary theories, 3 pragmatist theories and 6 formal theories described in the Wikipedia article, in English, on Truth. A comprehensive theory of truth all but supposes a comprehensive view upon everything and thus a vantage point for absolute truth. In logic, the "set of all sets" is a problematic concept which resembles "everything" but imposes upon it notions of "sets" and "elements". Let us instead consider Everything intuitively, in its everyday sense, and formally refer to it as that which has the following four properties:
In mathematics, {$ \bot $} is a vantage point from which all statements are true, and is thus a view upon Everything. I try to imagine what such a vantage point might ever yield, and in particular, how might it retreat so as to give rise to a state of noncontradiction? I am only able to suppose that it asks itself, Is {$ \bot $} necessary? Would it be, even if it wasn't? And then it proceeds by dividing itself into perspectives, as with a proof by contradiction, whereby it yields two perspectives: {$ \bot \rightarrow \bot $} (if it exists, then it exists) and {$ \neg \bot \rightarrow \bot$} (if it does not exist, yet even so, it exists). Next, it might consider, what is it that identifies the original contradiction {$ \bot_{O} $} with the arisen contradiction {$ \bot_{A} $}? We may say that {$ \bot_{O} $} understands (separates itself and its negation into separate statements) and that {$ \bot_{A} $} comes to understand (likewise separates itself and its negation, but within the same statement) and so they understand the same negation {$ \neg \bot \equiv \bot_{N} $}, which separates itself within the same term {$ \neg \bot $}, and which is the contradiction that is understood. And here the initial state of selfcontradiction has divided itself into three perspectives  three scopes for selfcontradiction  the language ({$ \bot_{O} $}), the statement ({$ \bot_{A} $}) and the term ({$ \bot_{N} $}). As Godel showed with his Incompleteness theorems, if statements determine a language (it is complete), and terms determine sentences (they are consistent), and the language determines its terms (whether to interpret them syntactically or semantically, so that they are able to contradict themselves), then there indeed must be a contradiction somewhere. Or, thinking backwards, a state of contradiction may divide itself into three perspectives, that of a language, a statement and a term. Such a process of divisions can be described further, but here I simply note  let us say, poetically  that a division of the original contradiction {$ \bot_{O} $} into seven perspectives yields a noncontradictory System given by four corners and three sides of the logical square: {$ \forall x, \forall x \wedge \exists x,\exists x, \exists x \wedge \exists x \neg, \exists x \neg, \exists x \neg \wedge \forall x \neg, \forall x \neg $}. And yet an eighth perspective {$ \forall x \wedge \forall x \neg $} indicates that the entire System is empty, or equivalently, yields our original state of selfcontradiction. This eighth perspective may be taken as a unique referent beyond the System which, if referenced, can make the entire System collapse, as an affirmation of selfcontradiction. Let us now consider how divisions of everything are fundamental to our own cognition and how they ground and relate different theories of truth. For issues of existence, we divide everything into two perspectives: "opposites coexist" (so that we can ask questions, does a chair exist or not?) and "all things are the same" (so that we can have answers  if it exists, then it exists, and if not, then not). We conceive of this deep structure through one of four different representations, namely:
Issues of knowledge depend on four perspectives: Whether, What, How, Why. Let us illustrate what the levels of knowledge with regard to a water bottle. Our senses present us an image of What the bottle appears to be, in which case we know Something. Whereas our intellect thinks of the bottle as a blueprint for How it is created and used, the principles by which we know Anything. We experience our own life through these two modes, conditionally. And yet we can also conceive of two additional unconditional modes. We can consider Whether a bottle exists if it is hidden and nobody sees it, and so we know Nothing. In order to know Why a bottle exists, we would have to know Everything, for it is associated with absolutely everything. Nothing, Something, Anything, Everything also arise as the structural scopes or selves by which the original {$ \bot_{O} $} retreats from itself, and goes beyond itself, and thus gives rise to itself, and goes into itself, arising as {$ \bot_{A} $}. Truth behaves very differently with regard to these scopes. For example, pragmatically:
With all of this in mind, we can consider four substantive theories of truth:
This foursome has two representations. Idealists think of these levels of knowledge in terms of views for asking questions Why? How? What? and tend to dismiss Whether? Whereas Materialists think them in terms of concepts for stating answers Whether! What! How! and tend to dismiss Why! This distinction is apparent in two deflationary theories which consider truth as asserting a statement:
We may think of a statement as arising from a view of a concept. Substantive theories base the truth in the relationship between views and concepts by which the statement will be established. Deflationary theories base the truth on the view or the concept of the statement which has already been established. We can think of these as the ways that a statement  an admission  can be made, so that it has the freedom to be an admission of selfcontradiction. They are the ways that truth can be ascribed to a statement before it is part of a formal System. Let us now consider how truth can be defined when a formal System of statements is well defined. Namely, we can negate any level of knowledge, as conditional, so as to refer to the unconditional  the original selfcontradiction  which is beyond the System. This yields the concepts:
These concepts are, in fact, representations of the nullsome, the division of everything into zero perspectives, as by them we conceive that original selfcontradiction beyond the System. Each of these representations of the nullsome triggers a representation of the division of everything into three perspectives. This threesome is for issues of participation, and defines a threecycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting, as with the scientific method. There are four representations of this threesome, yielding twelve circumstances, much like Kant's twelve categories, but based not on the logical form of a statement, but rather on the following "mind games":
We can similarly distinguish:
If the original selfcontradiction manages to carve out of itself a noncontradictory System, then there may be thought to be a unique selfcontradictory referent (the Truth) beyond that System, as all such referents are equivalent, as regards the System. The distinction between the noncontradictory System and the original, selfcontradictory Metasystem is thus fundamental. From the System's point of view, we can consider the System as generated by metalingual extensions, but the ultimate extension will be that final referent, the Truth  the (Systemic) admission of (the original) selfcontradiction. In this way, we can discuss:
Finally, pragmatic theories are also compatible with defining truth as an admission of selfcontradiction. If the truth is unknowable, and what is knowable is falsehood, as Hocking claims, then we may have that:
In summary, a study of what we can possibly imagine, and in particular, thinking backward from a state of contradiction, offers a comprehensive perspective upon Everything as needed for absolute truth. But such a perspective suggests that the most basic truth is admission of inherent selfcontradiction.
A diagram that I made for myself... 
20170928TruthNaujausi pakeitimai 
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2017 gegužės 16 d., 10:11
