The Liar's paradox

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:49 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:35 pm
Why the question?
Indeed. Why?
Sure but why not the question and not the question?
EB

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:03 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:47 pm
I guess you've found even more insane than you.
By what criteria do you determine that people who choose to manipulate symbols differently to you are 'insane'?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:37 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:03 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:47 pm
I guess you've found even more insane than you.
By what criteria do you determine that people who choose to manipulate symbols differently to you are 'insane'?
Your posts are insane. That's looks like a giveaway.
I'm assuming those are your posts?
Or rather, I'm assuming these posts are somebody's posts.
So, yeah, I'm assuming a lot.
Maybe you're not insane because you just don't exist.
Jeez, I haven't thought about that!
EB

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:34 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:37 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:03 pm
By what criteria do you determine that people who choose to manipulate symbols differently to you are 'insane'?
Your posts are insane. That's looks like a giveaway.
Petitio principii.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:37 pm
I'm assuming those are your posts?
Or rather, I'm assuming these posts are somebody's posts.
So, yeah, I'm assuming a lot.
Maybe you're not insane because you just don't exist.
Jeez, I haven't thought about that!
EB
They are all my posts. What makes them 'insane'?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:25 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:34 pm
They are all my posts. What makes them 'insane'?
Good.
So, here is a very small by representative sample:
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:22 pm
I will provide a “rational proof” that I am not a “moronic idiot” when you define the criteria for rationality in Lambda calculus.
Insane.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:22 pm
Till then - you can’t frame the debate because you are dogmatic.
Insane.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:22 pm
You are yet to figure out that you can think for yourself.
Insane.
Three times insane.
Isn't that already much too much?!
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 pm

Greta wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:50 am
A lot of complicated answers that I don't understand :)

What I see are three abstract objects:

1. the container - the statement
2. the container's contents - that refers to the statement - and
3. true/false assessments of the contents and their relation to the container.

I can't put my finger on it but there seems to be a linguistic issue, maybe a vagueness, with the assessment that creates the paradox.
There is nothing vague about the sentence.
The only very vague thing, really, is your reply.
Whenever you get to firm things up, we'll have something to discuss.
EB

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4303
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Greta » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 pm
Greta wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:50 am
A lot of complicated answers that I don't understand :)

What I see are three abstract objects:

1. the container - the statement
2. the container's contents - that refers to the statement - and
3. true/false assessments of the contents and their relation to the container.

I can't put my finger on it but there seems to be a linguistic issue, maybe a vagueness, with the assessment that creates the paradox.
There is nothing vague about the sentence.
The only very vague thing, really, is your reply.
Whenever you get to firm things up, we'll have something to discuss.
EB
Sure, chew on this: http://steve-patterson.com/resolving-the-liars-paradox/

After a long dissertation it's concluded that:
Again, we’ve gotten no closer to a proposition to evaluate as true or false. If “the following sentence” and “the previous sentence” are references, then there will never be a truth claim being made. They are simply two phrases pointing to each other. There are other ways to formulate the liar’s paradox, and they all follow the same pattern. They appear to be sensible at first glance, but once you unpack the meaning of the terms, they are revealed to be linguistic errors.
"Linguistic errors" seems pretty compatible with "vagueness".

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:32 am

Greta wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pm
"Linguistic errors" seems pretty compatible with "vagueness".
Well, I asked him to define his criteria in Mathematics. Which would address any vagueness in the discussion. Apparently that's "insane".

We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon...

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pm
Again, we’ve gotten no closer to a proposition to evaluate as true or false.
Sure, but that's precisely why mathematicians say it's a paradox. What's new?
Greta wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pm
If “the following sentence” and “the previous sentence” are references, then there will never be a truth claim being made.
That's pretty idiotic and patently false.
The sentence is a truth claim: This sentence is false.
We all understand what it means. No vagueness at all. We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
When used to refer to itself, though, we get a paradox, but we nonetheless still have a truth claim. It's one we cannot decide whether it is true but it is still a truth claim.
Greta wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pm
They are simply two phrases pointing to each other. There are other ways to formulate the liar’s paradox, and they all follow the same pattern. They appear to be sensible at first glance, but once you unpack the meaning of the terms, they are revealed to be linguistic errors.
Unfortunately, nothing has been unpacked. I already knew this webpage. What he explains here is not substantially different from the 2,400 years old explanation given by mathematicians and philosophers that there is a paradox. So, Mr. Patterson here is just engaging in wishful thinking.
The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
EB

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is a truth claim: This sentence is false.
What the fuck is a truth-claim? e.g which theory of truth are you are appealing to? There are at least 20 of them...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We all understand what it means. No vagueness at all.
Who is "we"? I don't understand what it means.
The sentence contains zero bits of information - therefore it is infinitely vague.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
See first point above. What the fuck is a truth-claim?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theory

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false
type-theory.png
type-theory.png (65.73 KiB) Viewed 86 times

Wyman
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Wyman » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is a truth claim: This sentence is false.
What the fuck is a truth-claim? e.g which theory of truth are you are appealing to? There are at least 20 of them...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We all understand what it means. No vagueness at all.
Who is "we"? I don't understand what it means.
The sentence contains zero bits of information - therefore it is infinitely vague.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
See first point above. What the fuck is a truth-claim?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theory

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false

type-theory.png
A 'truth claim' is a proposition. It asserts something about the world. And it asserts that that something is true. His sentence is asserting that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is true.

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:50 am

Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 am
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is a truth claim: This sentence is false.
What the fuck is a truth-claim? e.g which theory of truth are you are appealing to? There are at least 20 of them...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We all understand what it means. No vagueness at all.
Who is "we"? I don't understand what it means.
The sentence contains zero bits of information - therefore it is infinitely vague.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
See first point above. What the fuck is a truth-claim?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theory

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false

type-theory.png
A 'truth claim' is a proposition. It asserts something about the world. And it asserts that that something is true. His sentence is asserting that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is true.
Rinse/repeat.

What the fuck is an assertion?

If you paid attention to the book I posted above propositions are types in Homotopy.

How do you assert the truth-value of a proposition?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:52 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm
The sentence is a truth claim
What the fuck is a truth-claim?
???
Look it up?
truth claim
a hypothesis not yet verified by experience.
Do you speak English?
You seem to, but you're insane.
EB

Wyman
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Wyman » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:50 am
Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 am
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pm

What the fuck is a truth-claim? e.g which theory of truth are you are appealing to? There are at least 20 of them...


Who is "we"? I don't understand what it means.
The sentence contains zero bits of information - therefore it is infinitely vague.


See first point above. What the fuck is a truth-claim?


The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theory

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false

type-theory.png
A 'truth claim' is a proposition. It asserts something about the world. And it asserts that that something is true. His sentence is asserting that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is true.
Rinse/repeat.

What the fuck is an assertion?

If you paid attention to the book I posted above propositions are types in Homotopy.

How do you assert the truth-value of a proposition?
If your answer to most questions involves type theory, then why not start a thread on that topic? But referring people to books is not in the spirit of a discussion forum. I think most people know what an assertion is, but in the spirit of your conversation style, I would refer you to Websters if you are not clear.

Logik
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:55 pm

Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:24 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:50 am
Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 am


A 'truth claim' is a proposition. It asserts something about the world. And it asserts that that something is true. His sentence is asserting that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is true.
Rinse/repeat.

What the fuck is an assertion?

If you paid attention to the book I posted above propositions are types in Homotopy.

How do you assert the truth-value of a proposition?
If your answer to most questions involves type theory, then why not start a thread on that topic? But referring people to books is not in the spirit of a discussion forum. I think most people know what an assertion is, but in the spirit of your conversation style, I would refer you to Websters if you are not clear.
My answer - to most questions is that there are at least 20 theories of truth.

There is the coherence theory, correspondence theory, pragmatic theory, semantic theory, many truth-religions to choose from.

And so in the spirit of discussion - you may want to be clear which religion you subscribe to.

I already told you yet beyond logic “truth” is nonsense.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests