The Liar's paradox

[Speakpigeon]

This sentence is false. As the explanation of the paradox goes, if the sentence is false, then it is true since it says it is false. But if it is true, then it is false since it says it is false. Hence the paradox.

If you think this is a paradox, please explain briefly how you solve the paradox, if you think you do.

Second, if you think it is not a paradox, please explain briefly why.

Finally, do you think it should be possible to prove there is in fact no paradox.

Thank you to stick to the point and refrain from personal attacks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

The statement: "This sentence is false" is a conclusion devoid of any context.

What is true or false is not identified.

A sentence without any information cannot be true or false.

Only the things mentioned in a sentence can be true or false.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's no 'paradox'.
There's no contrapositive.

If THIS sentence is true then THAT sentence must be false.

But the liars paradox gobbledygook says...
If THIS sentence is true then THIS sentence must be false.

I've never seen an imaginary paradox which couldn't be resolved by using a little bit of that same imagination. Immovable rock / irresistible force. Omniscience / free will. Secretaries club.

 

[DBT]

The liars paradox is neither true or false.

 

[Speakpigeon]

REMINDER

This sentence is false. As the explanation of the paradox goes, if the sentence is false, then it is true since it says it is false. But if it is true, then it is false since it says it is false. Hence the paradox.

If you think this is a paradox, please explain briefly how you solve the paradox, if you think you do.

Second, if you think it is not a paradox, please explain briefly why.

Finally, do you think it should be possible to prove there is in fact no paradox.

Thank you to stick to the point and refrain from personal attacks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How about addressing these simple points?

A sentence without any information in it cannot be true or false.

The terms true and false cannot be used to refer to absolutely nothing.

A sentence devoid of any information cannot be judged true or false.

True and false are conclusions not empty claims.

This exercise is not worth much.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How about addressing these simple points?

A sentence without any information in it cannot be true or false.

The sentence "This sentence is false" is clearly very informative about itself. It says of itself that it is false.

The terms true and false cannot be used to refer to absolutely nothing.

The term "false" is used in the sentence to qualify itself as false.

A sentence devoid of any information cannot be judged true or false.

It contains clear information. To say that a sentence is of course very important information

True and false are conclusions not empty claims.

The question is how do you prove it's an empty claim.

Is the falsehood of "2 =2 and not 2 = 2" an empty claim?

If not, how do you prove it?

This exercise is not worth much.

Why are you even posting here, then.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

There's no 'paradox'.
There's no contrapositive.

If THIS sentence is true then THAT sentence must be false.

But the liars paradox gobbledygook says...
If THIS sentence is true then THIS sentence must be false.

I've never seen an imaginary paradox which couldn't be resolved by using a little bit of that same imagination. Immovable rock / irresistible force. Omniscience / free will. Secretaries club.

So, go on, prove there's no paradox.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The sentence "This sentence is false" is clearly very informative about itself. It says of itself that it is false.

It is a sentence devoid of information but with a conclusion.

A conclusion based on nothing is meaningless.

The sentence is meaningless.

That you imbed it with meaning is meaningless as well.

You claiming a meaningless sentence has meaning is an empty claim.

There is nothing more here.

 

[Lion IRC]

The sentence "This sentence is false" is clearly very informative about itself. It says of itself that it is false.



The term "false" is used in the sentence to qualify itself as false.

A sentence devoid of any information cannot be judged true or false.

It contains clear information. To say that a sentence is of course very important information

True and false are conclusions not empty claims.

The question is how do you prove it's an empty claim.

Is the falsehood of "2 =2 and not 2 = 2" an empty claim?

If not, how do you prove it?

This exercise is not worth much.

Why are you even posting here, then.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

There's no 'paradox'.
There's no contrapositive.

If THIS sentence is true then THAT sentence must be false.

But the liars paradox gobbledygook says...
If THIS sentence is true then THIS sentence must be false.

I've never seen an imaginary paradox which couldn't be resolved by using a little bit of that same imagination. Immovable rock / irresistible force. Omniscience / free will. Secretaries club.

So, go on, prove there's no paradox.
EB

OK
Something which doesn't exist does not exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The sentence "This sentence is false" is clearly very informative about itself. It says of itself that it is false.

It is a sentence devoid of information but with a conclusion.

A conclusion based on nothing is meaningless.

The sentence is meaningless.

That you imbed it with meaning is meaningless as well.

You claiming a meaningless sentence has meaning is an empty claim.

There is nothing more here.

Your post is meaningless drivel that only reflect the vacuity of your metaphysics. You have no argument, your English is as bad as that of a non-native speaker, and you repeat yourself endlessly without ever engaging with the issue, merely pretending to respond to posts without even addressing what other people say. It's painfully pathetic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, go on, prove there's no paradox.
EB

OK
Something which doesn't exist does not exist.

That's a tautology and that's irrelevant because the issue here is empirical. People have discussed the sentence as a paradox. Anyone with a brain understand the sentence is paradoxical.

So, no, clearly not good enough.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

An homage to threads started by Speakpigeon;



The above picture is not true.
Chocolate ice cream is false.
The color baldness is a religion

 

[Lion IRC]

There's no 'paradox'.
There's no contrapositive.

If THIS sentence is true then THAT sentence must be false.

But the liars paradox gobbledygook says...
If THIS sentence is true then THIS sentence must be false.

I've never seen an imaginary paradox which couldn't be resolved by using a little bit of that same imagination. Immovable rock / irresistible force. Omniscience / free will. Secretaries club.

No Lion IRC
You have to prove that the paradox doesn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

The sentence "This sentence is false" is clearly very informative about itself. It says of itself that it is false.

It is a sentence devoid of information but with a conclusion.

A conclusion based on nothing is meaningless.

The sentence is meaningless.

That you imbed it with meaning is meaningless as well.

You claiming a meaningless sentence has meaning is an empty claim.

There is nothing more here.

Your post is meaningless drivel that only reflect the vacuity of your metaphysics. You have no argument, your English is as bad as that of a non-native speaker, and you repeat yourself endlessly without ever engaging with the issue, merely pretending to respond to posts without even addressing what other people say. It's painfully pathetic.
EB

Non-responsive. Childish ranting.

Is it you don't understand or don't care to understand?

The sentence is devoid of any information. Judgements of truth and falsity cannot rationally be made in the absence of any information.

There is no more to this childishness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

An homage to threads started by Speakpigeon;

View attachment 20094

The above picture is not true.
Chocolate ice cream is false.
The color baldness is a religion

It has to be darkly funny that you can't get your ass off the floor and argue anything, ever, and yet, here you are, suggesting that my logic is somehow very wrong.

Well, I guess you would argue your point if you had one.

Otherwise, it would be paradoxical to argue a point you don't have.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Non-responsive.

We would need to be two presenting a rational position for me to respond to you.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Non-responsive.

We would need to be two presenting a rational position for me to respond to you.
EB

You have proven you have no ability to make rational judgements.

Many times.

This is just your latest.

 

[ideologyhunter]

A 'PARDOX' is not an entity. Unless it is 'my friend, the yoked beast of burden'. I reckon. But in that case, the compound form is incorrect.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This sentence is false. As the explanation of the paradox goes, if the sentence is false, then it is true since it says it is false. But if it is true, then it is false since it says it is false. Hence the paradox.

If you think this is a paradox, please explain briefly how you solve the paradox, if you think you do.

Second, if you think it is not a paradox, please explain briefly why.

Finally, do you think it should be possible to prove there is in fact no paradox.

Thank you to stick to the point and refrain from personal attacks.
EB

I tried to find a sensible resolution of this paradox but all I found was not convincing at all.

The idea that the sentence doesn't refer to anything is wrong on the face of it.

The idea that it doesn't make sense is a bit better but not quite right. The sentence makes enough sense that you can see it is paradoxical. So, saying it doesn't make sense because it is paradoxical doesn't help since it makes enough sense to be felt as paradoxical.

Some Arthur Prior dude has a more interesting position. He asserts that there is nothing paradoxical about the liar paradox because, he says, all statements implicitly assert their truth. Thus, the statement "This statement is false" is straightforwardly understood as "This statement is true and this statement is false".

But then, "This statement is true and this statement is false" is a formal contradiction and as such we can say that it is false. And then there is no paradox because to say that the statement "This statement is true and this statement is false" is false is not contradictory with the fact that it is indeed false. Ergo, no paradox.

I don't buy it, at least not the way it is presented, but there seems to be something correct in that explanation.

Still, what I didn't find was an explanation of why it should be felt to be a paradox if it is not a paradox. To me, there's no doubt it sounds paradoxical.

Now, apparently, there is no simple solution in the context of mathematical logic. Why is that? Anybody knows?

Tarski apparently "diagnosed" the paradox as arising only in languages in which it is possible for one sentence to predicate truth (or falsehood) of another sentence in the same language and indeed of itself. So, his solution is to forbid that possibility in mathematical logic. Right, so, basically, he just changed the subject of the conversation and in effect admitted to not having a proper resolution.

Unless anyone can update my findings?
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What’s wrong with it not having a resolution? Logic is simply a way that we model reality and models aren’t perfectly accurate. This is just one instance where our logical models fails to accurately reflect reality.