Please ignore this. I should first go through formal logic.

Yes there is a comparison involved, I agree, if that's what you mean. Orange is compared to a fruit, and the whole sentence with truth.
But there is no left or right there. You are thinking of an equation. No such thing is defined here.

An orange is a fruit -- true, matches — AngleWyrm

There is no left or right here. Orange is a fruit by definition.

The metalanguage needs to be larger than the object language, and the truth in the metalanguage, depends upon a greater metalanguage and so forth.

"That is a tree" is a true statement if, and only if, that is a tree. — creativesoul

This one assumes an infinite tower of metalanguages. So, it assumes a concept of infinity.

Yes, exactly. Great, we finally agree on something.
And then, everything can be modelled either as a statement or a question, or an assumption, all of which can have true or false value.

The Universe can be said to be generating true statements every moment.

Do you mean the relationship between the logic and it's result? Then we do, otherwise I have no clue, because relationship has to be defined between objects, or elements.

That was a typo. Can be. not can't be.
Statements have the property of truth.
A statement either has the property of true, or true', which can be defined very easily as the set not true.

Between what?

Apple is red because it is defined to be red.
So a statement can be true if it is logically valid, or assumed to be true(Putting definitions as assumptions as well, any rule too).

But the comparison that you mentioned of earlier varies across languages.
One might say the apple being red is true, and apple being red, and somewhat round is true.
The latter being more true etc.

In math for instance, sentences if true are equally true.

I am sorry, my way of looking at it is to define it(truth, or other things) one way, and then see what we can do with it. Does it cover everything or not?

Truth will depend upon the question being asked, that is certain, but everything in thought can be divided into questions and beliefs, even sensations, and emotions. The mind thinking of them as true.

What it actually is, is a matter of wide speculation, but I think the philosophical answer should depend on usefulness as well. How much can each viewpoint explain?

Can you explain that term more clearly? How so?

Thanks.
But, how would you know if you are not assigning a false sentence the property of truth?
The barn is big is one sentence, the barn is small is another.
How would one know whether to club them together or not?

Plus we are assigning the property of truth here, not defining it.

I'd rather just know if I was right or wrong. But, I guess the answers are more clear in a field like physics, than philosophy.

Tarski's definition depends on logical validity as well.
For all x, True(x) if and only if φ(x)
φ(s) if and only if ψ
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/

He does assume logical validity after all.
Although, I must admit that I have not read him completely. Correct me please if you think I am wrong.

Tarski also cannot avoid the circularity wrt logical validity eventually.

Any sentence he forms has to be logically valid, and what does logical validity eventually depend on? Truth.

There is more than one dimension to this circularity. One cannot avoid all of them.

I think I did get a good enough definition.
That particular circularity is impossible to avoid, even in Tarski's definition.

Haha. That is true, but one must seek something in life, and in this one, I sought truth :P

And what may that be exactly?

I am not trying to say why a statement is true.
Indeed that is a much harder question to answer.
Logic itself exists because intuitively we as human beings can differentiate between true and false.

I am just trying to define a true and false.

That particular circularity between logical validity and truth, I must argue is the minimum that has to be.

"Trouble is, validity is defined in terms of truth. Circularity ensues."

I think I agree with you on this. If you were to define logical validity:
All m is P, is True
All S is m, is True
----
All S is P , is True.
How, do we know All S is P is valid? Because it is true, and other sentences which can be formed may not be.

I think that is a circularity we cannot do without, any definition of truth has to be based on some logical validity.

Heidegger on truth:

"Truth... comes to its ultimate essence which is called certainty. — tim wood

I would certainly agree that truth has the property of certainty. Although it's relation to consciousness as mentioned in your post is slightly long worded, and complicated to understand in one try. I will read again.

No, it's on logical validity that I seek to define Truth on. Forget existence, give it the word A. It would not change a bit.

Existence just came close to what I wanted. Here, sets can exist, statements can exist, Questions can exist, No can exist, and maybe a few other elements, or uncertainty can also exist. But,k you will never know exactly what all can exist, so it's not possible to define this set.
It's the Universe, it will always be undefined.

Edit: The Universe is the set of all sets in existence.

But then existence is always undefined.

But the true set which I defined has a one to one correspondence with this undefined set, at least in one dimension, by definition, or construction through logic.

There's a problem on your definition!
Universe is undefined. Cannot be defined.

False as you say is in relation to true.

The problem with that universe thing again.

Made the edit, hopefully it is more clear now.

Yeah, I think though there is no better name for it. I am trying to justify using the same name currently, give me some time.

Fine, I will change the names. Hopefully it comes out more poetic :P

The thing is I am not talking about the same thing.
There are two truths in the statements I am making. I apologize for not pointing it out earlier.
I have made the edit now.

The truth which is defined eventually is not the same as the original truth.

I argue later that this is the best way to deal with defining truth, and avoiding a completely circular definition like "Truth is that which is true", or avoiding an infinite tower which was used by Tarski, because it entails assuming infinity.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic. Probably are.

Yes, because there is a double meaning. A place where I have been incoherent.
The initial term truth remains undefined.

I introduce another two terms true and false later on based on the undefined term truth earlier.

I do not think I have been inconsistent, maybe incoherent sometimes.
I'd love to find out at the very least where I am inconsistent.

I am working on the language, yes, but I think some things ought to be clear at least?

At the very least, I already have a few pointers. Any thoughts about the idea itself?
Could be wrong, could be right, I'd really like to know.

Yes, I agree, but fact can be derived from logic as well.

For example in mathematics, we say 2+ 2 = 4, is true, under a certain set of assumptions being held true.

Observations are not entirely so different, when you think about it.

Which is why, I aim to achieve "maximum truth", by using the least number of presumptions possible.
As I said, under my proposition, truth is somewhat subjective as you say by preserving the truth of the premises.

Even observation is not without premise. You do need to presume that the world is real.

Only if the assumptions are wrong.
If you make the correct assumptions, whatever valid deduction you get has to be truth.

In my presentation, truth is decided by logical validity and the strength of assumptions.
It is subjective under the assumptions. Objective truth is one without any assumptions.

So the truth value of a sentence, depends on it's logical validity and the strength of the assumptions it is under.

Yes, there can be lots of false statements, once you get a true statement, anything else has to be false, say.

But the "false", cannot exist. That you bring existence into question is a little weird though. I only talk about mappings and any possible objects that you could have.
Eg:
The bottle will only be at a distance of 10m from me.
11 m is false, so is 9m and so on...

Strange thing about false statements, is that they can also be ascribed the property of truth, for example.

"The statement that the bottle is 9m in front of me is false," is also True
You can say even that reflects fact.

Corrected. Jesus :)
Please do let me know if I made any more obvious or non obvious mistakes.

I apologize, my mistake. You are correct. We give abstractions to qualitative and quantitative concepts about objects.

1) A statement being true, could come from description of an observation (existence), or it could come from deduction. It's not that existence is the only criteria for truth.
2) False statements about observations cannot exist. You can only observe true statements, and then take their converse or complement to get false statements. (not this statement is false)

How can a false statement be true? That is paradoxical.
A statement being false could be true.

It's like giving names to abstract quantities. You might say you discovered the abstract quantity, but you did name it length first.