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.
Last edited by Age on Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:39 pmThis 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.
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
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