Definations Of Truth[S-D-Q] and Falsehood / Falsity [K-DH-B] . Truth [S:-D-Q] in the Real meaning is " the Accordance [ M-TA:-B-Q-H] Of a Statement [KH-B-R] (Affirmative or Negativie Sentence) With The Occurrance [WA:-Q-'']'' . Similarly Falsehood (Falsity) in the Real meaning (primery meaning) is the Non -Accordance [''ADAM MUTA:BIQAH] of a Statement With The Occurrance.'' There are some disputes in regard to the belief of the speaker of the statement.Some impose the following conditions in the defination of Truth and Falsehood / Falsity. a]The statement must be Externally and Exteriorly in accordance to the Occurrance. b]The statement must be according to the belief of the speaker (stater). For examble if some one does not belief in Ice but says that ''Ice Exists/ Ice Does Exist'' then this statement is False since it does not satisfy the second condition imposed. Thus a defination of falsehood / is that it is a statement that is not in accordence to the belief of the Stater / speaker. Some define falshood /falsity as a statement that dissatisfy each of the above stated condition of the Truth. This makes a room of a statement that is neither true nor false. But a Great number of theologians,exogitaters,laxitonists have defines Truth Truth as '' the Accordanc of a Statement to the Occurrance '' . COMPROMISE The Real meaning of Truth: The Real Meaning of Truth is the Accordance of the Statement to the Occurrance. The First of the secondary meanings is: A STAREMMENT WHICH SATISFIES ABOVE STATED TWO CONDITIONS., The Real meaning of Falsehood / Falsity is the Non accordance of a Statement to the Occurrance. The first of the secondary [vertual / majazi] meaning of FALSEHOOD /FALSITY is an Statement which dissatisfy any one of the two conditions stated above. The second of the secondary meanings is an statement which dissatisfy both of the stated conditions. Other meanings of Truth and Falsehood / falsity. 1]The word truth is used in the meaning of HAQIQAH /HAQQ .This mean REALITY. 2]THE WORD FALSEHOOD / FALSITY IS USED IN THE MEANING BATIL [UNREAL /UNREALITY]. 3] The word Truth is used in the meaning of Accuracy /Exactness of Knowlidge ,when it is used in regard of knowlidge. 4]The word Falsehood /falsity is used in the meaning of COMPOUND IGNORENCE when used in reference to KNOWLIDGE. Lack of knowliged about a thing is called Simple ignorence. Exempli gratia if a person does not know whether A is B or Not B the it is a Simple Ignorence [J-H-L BA SI:T] . IF A PESON IS MISINFORMED THAT A is B ,But in in Reality Ais Not B then this is a Compound Ignorence. [JH-L M-R-K-B].5]The word true is used in the meaning of valid when it refers to an argument.Similarly the words falsehood and falsity are used in meaning of invalid when they refer to an afgument. Modern logicians do not use them for arguments.6]The word truth is used in the meaning of Affirmation and the wors falshood and falsity are used in the meaning of negation. MODERN MATHEMATICS AND TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD /FALSITY. In Mathematical Axiom systems ,it is intrinsically absurd to appeal to any thing out side the given system., ito determine Truth or Falsehood /Falsity of a given statement. Exempli gratia '' ALL CATS ARE BATS'' is a false statement in real world. But it may be true in a given Axiom system,since the Axioms of the systems determine the the truth or falsity /falsehood of a givien statement and not the External Reality.A Sstatement which is True in one system may be false in an other system. Any how the words Truth and Falsehood are also used in the following meanings in Mathematics. 1]In the meaning of Provable or proved or both.[TRUTH] 2] In the meaning of Unprovable,Disprovable or unprovable et cetera.[FALSEITY /FALSEHOOD]. 3]Some time the terms are used as UNDEFINED TERMS. Some Modern logicians opine that double negation of a true statement is not tentamount to its
truth. A DETAIL DISCUSSION OF MATHEMATICAL MEANINGS ARE BEYOUND THE SCOPE OF THIS WORK. Truth is some times used in the meaning of RIGHT OR GOOD OR BOTH.Also in the meaning of Correctness. Falsehood /falsity is some time used in the meanings of WRONG OR BAD OR BOTH. Like in Mathematics Truth is used in the meaning of AFFIRMATION ,CONFIRMATION et cetera. Similarly Falsehood /falsity is used in the meanings of Negation, Unconfirmed,Unaffirmed et cetera. Modern logician impose a condition of existentiality when they claim that for an empty class negation of a false statement is not true.A detail dicussion is beyond the scope of this work. Relation of Truth and a True Statement. It is clear that Truth in the real meaning is an Attribute /Quality of a True statement.A staement is True if and only if truth is an Attribute / Quality of the statement. Similarly Falsehood /Falsity is an Attribute / Quality of a False Statement. A statement is False if and only if Falsity / falsehood is an Attribute /Quality of the statement Thus truth of a given statement is the Accordance of the statement to the Occurrance and a true statement is one that is in Accordance to the Occurrance. Similarly one may say the same for Falsity / Falsehood and a false sataement. Analysis of Truth,Falsehood/Falsity and staements. Suppose that a stater /speaker states /speaks '' Zaid is sitting or Zaid sits''. Suppose that Zaid is REALLY sitting at the time this sentence was uttered. Then this statement is True and Truth is an Attribute /Quality of this statement [ AffirmativeSentence]. Suppose that the same person says the vfery same statement once again. But this time Zaid is NOT sitting. Now the vey same statemnt is False. The reason is very clear. At the first time the sentence was in accordence to the occurrance while at thje second time it was NOT in Accordance to the Occurrance. It may be pointed out that the former sentence is different from the latter sentence. since ''''Former'''' is not the latter and the '''latter'''' is not the ''''former''''.[by the definations /mneanings of Farmer and Latter] Since the former is true and the latter is false But this is pointless for the present discussion. Since the previous statement is different and the latter sentence is different how ever the corresponding words of the corresponding sentences are congruent [id est identical copies of each other] ( in regard to the words and the meaning intended) Yet oneof them is ascribed by [with] the attribute of the truth while he other of them is ascribed with the attribute of falsehood / falsity.THE MEANINGS ARE SIMILAR BUT THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE MEANING ARE DIFFERENT. In the sentences Zaid is sitting and Zaid is not sitting the meanings are not similar [identical copies of each other]. This does prove that the TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD /FALSITY are just the relative attributes of the statements [at least in general]. Even if it is assumed that a true statement is perpetually true and a false statemnt is perpetually false the change of ACCORANCE TO NON ACCORDANCE IS SELF POSSIBLE [WITH EXCEPTIONS]. Suppose that it is Self Absurd for Zaid to sit at the time when the former sentence was spoken or made. Then one may argue that the falsehood / falsity of the statement is SELF ABSURD.Sinse the change of the self absurd to self possible implies the change in the relation of accordance to the relation of non accordance. But CHANGE FROM Self Possibl;e to Self Absurd and from Self Absurd to Self Possible are Self Absurd. Now suppose that the act of sitting of Zaid is Self Possible at the time THE STATEMENT WAS STATED.
Now the change is Self Possible. Sinse the three dimensions of time nounly Future, Pasr and Present can not chance A SELF ABSURD TO A SELF POSSIBLE AND VICE VERSA.,So the self possibility of sitting of a person say Zaid in past is perpetually Self Possible and Self Possibility of sitting Self Implies the Self Possibility of Not Sitting. This Self Possibility Does Self Imply the Self Possibility of the change in Relations stated above. It can not be said that once a SELF POSSIBLE ACT has occured it has been Mutated to a Self Absurd act. It must be noted that Time by any defination of the Term Time is Self Possible and a Creation which has a Begining like all Existing Self Possibles, and Aself Possible can not change a Self Possible to a Self Absurd. Any how if an act what so ever it is is Self Possible ,and it occurrs then it is Self Possible at the time of its occurrance and this very Self Possibility Self Implies the Self Possibility Of ITS NOT OCCURRANCE [non occurrance]AT THE VERY SAME TIME AND THIS implies the Self Possibility of change in relaion atleast at that time.This is the possibility of falsehood /falsity. The very same can be said for the Self Possibility of Truth of a False Statement. Thus any true statent is True With Absurdity of Its falsehood by Absurdity by Seperate / Absurdity With Seperate [ with EXCEPTIONS] Any false statement is false with Absurdity With Seperate /Absurdity by Seperae of its truth [whith the exceptions of a kind of sentences. The statements about the ETERNAL REALITIES et cetera Constitute the exception For example The statements ''CONTRADICTION IS SELF ABSURD'' is necessorily false and the possibility of its truth Self implues the Self Possibility of Alternation of Self Absurd to self Possible. Similarly the statememt '' Contradiction is Self Possible '' is Necessorily False and the Self Possibility of it ISelf Implies the same Alternation in vice versa but either case of Alternation is Self Absurd. Thus Self Possibility of a True Statement is one thing and the Self Possibility of Truth of a False statement is an othser thing. Similarly the Self Possibility of a False Statement is one thing and the Self Possibility of Falsehood /Falsity of a True statement is an other thing.They are not one and the same. But in a number of cases the latter self Implies the former.But not in all cases. In some cases AN IMPLICATION OF ANY KIND IS SELF ABSURD. AS the topic is difficult to understand since it involves the concept of time and a number of people do not hasitate to declair that If an act is Self Possible Both sides of it [id est Occurrance qnd Non Occurrance]n are Self Possible but one the act has occured it other side becomes Self ABSURD, AND THE ACT BECOMES NECESSORY IN THE PAST,it is required to clearify some misconcepts and misconceptions which may emerge in minds who are influencs by persons like IBN ARRUSHD etcetera. The system of discussion is based on the following Independent Axioms. Wrning this system may disappoint some who deney at least on Axiom of the System. 1]TIME IS SELF POSSIBLE. 2]Time has a begining. 3]An Event that is Self Possible Remains Self Possible even after its Occurrance in Time. 4]Past and Future are NonExistence. 5]G-D IS BEYOUND ALL POSSIBLE DIMENSIONS OF TIME. 6]Recreation of an annhiliated Self Possible is Self Possible.[This is some thing different from the '' Achieving the Achieved'']. 7] Time is Not an Divine Attribute. Under the above Axioms any defination of time Is incorrect that does not satisfy the mentioned above Axioms or need modifications so that it may satisfy each of them. As Time is Self Possible recalling of a past time [which is a non existence] is Self Possible. Suppose that an Event E0 occurrs at time T0. Suppse that the said event E0 is Self Possible and Temporal. As the event E0 IS SELF POSSIBLE IT IS NEITHER SELF ABSURD NOR SELF NECESSORY.
As a Self Possible can not convert to a Self NECESSOREY NOR it can convert to a Self Absurd, It is eternally and perpetually Self Possible.Since such a conversion is Self absurd. Time can not disturb the Self Absurdity,Self Possibility And Self Necessity,since it itself is in one of them.Self Possibility of each and every Self Possiblie is Beyond Time.As Time it self is Self Possible the Self Possibility OF TIME is beyond Time itself. As stated above T0 is the Time and E0 is the Event that is Self Possible, let it be supposed that The Event E0 DOES OCCUR AT TIME T0. This event E0 is Self Possible even when It Is Occurring.THIS DOES IMPLY that this is it is Self Possible at the very time of its Occurrance T=T0. As the Non Existence of a Self Possible is Self Possible even when it DOES Exist, the NON -OCCURRANCE OF THE Self Possible Event E0 IS SELF POSSIBLE EVEN WHEN IT IS OCCURRING. This DOES[1] SELF IMPLY THAT AT THE TIME OF ITS OCCURRANCE T=T0 ,ITS NON OCCURRANCE IS S4ELF POSSIBLE. LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT SOME ONE MAKES THE STATEMENT ''EVENT E0 DOES OCCUR'' AT TIME T=T0.This Statement S0 is True Since it is Inaccordance to the Event E0. The Self Possibility of Non Occurrance at T=T0 DOES SELF IMPLIY THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF OF NON ACCORDANCE OF THE STATEMENT AND THE EVENT. THis is nothing but the Self Possibility of Falsehood / Falsity of the given Statement S0. Yet the S0 may be perpetually True if the Falsehood /Falsity of the Statement S0 is Absurd With Seperate /Absurd By Seperate.One need not to discuss the Self Possibility of the Event E0 after its Occurrance at time T=T1,T1>T0 It can be proved that it is Still Self Possible.But this is beyond the scope of the present article. Exampli gratia 1] Suppose that a person Zaid is Sleeping at T=T0.2]Suppose an individual who so ever he may be makes a Statement '' Zaid is Sleeping'' at T=T0. The statement is strictly in accordance to the Occurrance. But it is Self Possible that the person Zaid is Not Sleeping at time T=T0.The Self Possibility of NOT SLEEPING OF ZAID at time T=T0 Does Self Imply The Self Possibility of Non Accordance of the Statement and the Occurrance. This is the SELF POSSIBILITYOF fALSEHOOD / fALSITY OF THE STATEMENT. This Statement is perpetuaaly True in the sense that this Self Possibility Shall never occur. So if it is assumed that a True Statement is Perpetuaaly True and a False Statement is Perpetually False means that these Self Possibility Shall Never Occur with the exception of those statements where Occurances are either Self Necessory or Self Absurd.Consider the statement ''Whole is greater then Part''. iF IS IS SELF POSSIBLE that Whole can become less than its parts then the possibility of Falsehood /Falsity of this statement is implied. But This is Self Absurd. Consider the statement '' Part is Greater than the whole''. This is a False Statement. If it is Self Possible that A Part is Greater than Whole the Self Possibility of Its Truth is Self Implied. But this is Swelf Absurd. Frm the above it becomes very clear that: a]Self Possibility of an Occurance Self Implies the Self Possibility Of Truth of a False statement. b]Self Possibility of an Occurance Self Implies the Self Possibility Of Falsehood /Falsity of a True Statement. But there are Self Possible True Sentences whose Falsehoods /Falsities are Self Absurd. Also there are Self Possible False Statments whose Truths are Self Absurd. This proves hat if The Falsehood of a Self PossibleTrue Sentence is Self Absurd then it DOES NOT IMPLY that all the false statements are Self Absurd. Similarly if Truths of Some False Statements are Self Absurd then this does not imply each and every True Statement is Self Absurd The Problem Of Continuelty Of A Statement. Scholors differ whether a statement has an instantanious existence or it cntinues to exist. In other
word whether a statement ceases to exist just at the very next moment of its creation or it continues to exist through out a given period of time. But this is beyond the scope of the present discussion ,since our discussion is strictly restricted to time T=T0, THE VERY MOMENT OF ITS CREATION AND NOT AT ANY OTHER DISTINCT MOMENT AFTER THIS MOMENT.[2] Some problems. If a statement is true then its negation is false.iF A is B is true then Ais NOT B is False. But there are some paradoxial statements. '' The evey sentence which you are reading is False''. The problem is that if it is True then it is false and if it is false then it is true. Solution of the problem It is according to the defination of a true statement that if a Sentence is accoring to the occurrance then it is a True Statement. It is according to the defination of a False Statement that if a statement is NOT in accordance to Occurrance then it is a False Statement. In this particular case the Accordance implies Not Accordamce. But If a thng Does Imply Its Negation Then It Is Self Absurd. Thus If Accordance Does Imply Not Accordance then the accordance is Self Absurd. This DOES PROVE that the Accordence of the statement to the Occurrance is Self Absurd.This Does Prove that the Statement is False. A question is that what if the Negation of a thing implies its Affirmation. There is no rule that if the Negation of a thing Implies its Affirmation or Assertion then It is Self Necessory . Rather if the Negation of a thing Does Imply Its Affirmation then the Affirmation of the Thig is Self Absurd. This Does Prove that if the NoT aCCORDANCE Imply the Accordance then the Accordance is Self Absurd. So this sentence is False. An other problem: If a statement is False then Its Negation is true . exempli gratia: a]If A is B is True then A is Not B is False. If A is B is False then A is Not B is True. b] If A ll A is B is True then Some A is Nit B is False.If All A is Not B is False then Some A is B Is True. But in this case '' The Statement which you are reading right now''(s1) is false its negation is problematic. Since It Appears that its Negation is ''The statement which you are reading right now is True''(s2). The hidden problem is as follow: The words ''The Statement which you are reading right now'' in the s1 does refer to si and not its negation. The very same words''The Statement which you are reading right now'' in s2 refers to the appearent negation and not to s1. In this case the occurance and the statement are same or imply each other ,the true negation of s1 is as follow: If this statment is certainly not accordance to the Occurrance then the question is as follow''Is its Negation what so ever it may be is in accordance to the occurrance. If it is then the negation is true. If it is not then this is the exceptional case where a statement and its negation both are not in accordance to the Occurrance.This there must be a rule that if a statement is false thenits negation is true if and only if the negation is in accordance to the occurrance..Whith out this condition this statements becomes an unsolvable paradox.This is perhaps the basis on which the Russel's Paradox is build up.An other solution is as follows: The contradictory of the statement '' this statement is false'' must necessory be true. Now if the contradictory of this statement say s1 is ''This statement is not false'' ,the question is whether the words of the statement say s2 ''This statements'' refer to statement s1 or statement s2.
If these words refe to s1 then a contradiction is self implied. Statement s1 is false and its contradictory is true by the principle and this contradictory states that the original statement is not false. But if the words '' This Statement'' refer to the s2 statement then it is true since its contradictory is false. id est s1. Thus as Absudities are implied rather self absurdities,the words ''this statement'' in s2 refer to the contradictory of the s1 statement and not to s1 it self. If we consider an other statement ''that statement is false say s3 and the words ''that statement '' refers to s1, its contradictory must be ''that statement is not false''say s4.S4 IS FALSE AND HENCE S3 IS TRUE.So the contradictory form '' it is false that this statement is false is not valid in this case,since it is not the true contradictory of the s1and is valid for the non paradoxial cases of statements.Any how when ever a statement refers to itself with paradoxial absurdity to the falsehood of it self,its contradictory refers to it self and not to the original statement.Thus both can not be true.Third solution.There is a concept of intrinsic exception or intellec exception. If the original statement is false the its contradictory is true with the exception of paradoxial statements when they refer to their own falsehood /falsity. The meaning of Occurance: The word Occurrance does not mean an existent or event.It may be an event [Temporal Occurrance] Or an Eternal Existent, Or an Eternal Reality like All Contradictions are Self ABSURD. IT MAY BE NEGATION OF AN OCCURRANCE EXIMPLI GRATIA ''EVENT A DOES NOT OCCUR'' Notes :1]Self Imply is not a claasical word in English ,how ever this new term is supposed as a single verb ,in order to convey the meaning accurately.There fore graamtical irregularities may appear.On may appologize for it but there is no other alternative left. 2]According to those who think that a statement in particular or a sentence in general exists only for a single moment of time, at each distint time an identical copy of the sentence is created..But thisdoes not make much problem.If there is a Possibility of truth in a false statment the same possibility must exist in its copy.If the statment or a speech or a sentence continues to exist event hen the possibillity of truth does not cease . Similarly the same can be said for a false statement with possibility of truth.