Page 3 of 6

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:35 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:20 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:19 pm

You are answering the question with a question.
All questions are the contextualization of answers.
Why contextualise answers?
Why the question?

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:40 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:35 pm
Why the question?
Indeed. Why?

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:42 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:35 pm
Why the question?
Indeed. Why?
How is it to be answer? Why may observe the meaning but how observes the means.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:50 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:42 pm
How is it to be answer? Why may observe the meaning but how observes the means.
Nope.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

You don't have a why.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:07 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:42 pm
How is it to be answer? Why may observe the meaning but how observes the means.
Nope.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

You don't have a why.
But I don't really have to "bear" "how" now do I? I mean just look at a cyclone, it just tears everything apart as is.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:11 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:07 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:42 pm
How is it to be answer? Why may observe the meaning but how observes the means.
Nope.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

You don't have a why.
But I don't really have to "bear" "how" now do I? I mean just look at a cyclone, it just tears everything apart as is.
A cyclone tears apart.
You are building.

Creating new logics.

Why?

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:19 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:07 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:50 pm

Nope.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

You don't have a why.
But I don't really have to "bear" "how" now do I? I mean just look at a cyclone, it just tears everything apart as is.
A cyclone tears apart.
You are building.

Creating new logics.

Why?
Creating empty space is still creating.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:50 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:19 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:07 pm


But I don't really have to "bear" "how" now do I? I mean just look at a cyclone, it just tears everything apart as is.
A cyclone tears apart.
You are building.

Creating new logics.

Why?
Creating empty space is still creating.
You are a like a cat chasing a laser pointer. You have no idea why you are doing it.

It's amusing and that's good enough.

For now.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:04 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:19 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:11 pm


A cyclone tears apart.
You are building.

Creating new logics.

Why?
Creating empty space is still creating.
You are a like a cat chasing a laser pointer. You have no idea why you are doing it.

It's amusing and that's good enough.

For now.
Ha, ha I am glad you are watching the cat chasing the laser pointer, it will keep you distracted from the man behind you using it.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:24 am
by Age
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:39 pm
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
To me, this is not a paradox at all because a 'paradox' is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition but actually expresses a truth.

Your example does not express a truth.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:50 am
by Greta
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:39 pm
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
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.

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:40 pm
by Speakpigeon
Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:11 pm
A green sky is false to both perception and inference.
Your statement isn't supported by your proof, since it doesn't even try to prove the sky is not green to begin with.
Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:11 pm
Sky is Sky
Blue is Blue
Sky is not Blue
Your "proof" here is not valid. From the premises "sky is sky" and "blue is blue", your conclusion "sky is not blue" doesn't follow.
Let alone that the sky is not green.
EB

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:45 pm
by Speakpigeon
Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:13 pm
different word is different word
Furthermore, x is x.
No logic is about "words".
Still, you're right, bullshit is bullshit.
I guess you just took the principle that validity is assessed purely on form just a little bit to literally. It's the form of the argument, not the form of the words within the argument.
EB

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:46 pm
by Speakpigeon
Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:18 pm
Whatever, but,

x is x

y is y

x is not y

Sky is Sky

Blue is Blue

Sky is not Blue
Sure, and Walker is not bright either.
EB

Re: The Liar's paradox

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:47 pm
by Speakpigeon
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:19 pm
Walker wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:18 pm
Whatever, but,

x is x

y is y

x is not y

Sky is Sky

Blue is Blue

Sky is not Blue
OK, I know you are trying to be prescriptive about classical logc, BUT you can fuck off with your linguistic prescriptivism.

We are trying to solve Liar's paradox. And you are insisting on using the logic which causes it.
I guess you've found even more insane than you.
EB