Sure but why not the question and not the question?
EB
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.
They are all my posts. What makes them 'insane'?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
Good.
Insane.
Insane.
Insane.
There is nothing vague about the sentence.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.
Sure, chew on this: http://steve-patterson.com/resolving-the-liars-paradox/Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 pmThere is nothing vague about the sentence.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.
The only very vague thing, really, is your reply.
Whenever you get to firm things up, we'll have something to discuss.
EB
"Linguistic errors" seems pretty compatible with "vagueness".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.
Sure, but that's precisely why mathematicians say it's a paradox. What's new?
That's pretty idiotic and patently false.
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.Greta wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:18 pmThey 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.
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.
See first point above. What the fuck is a truth-claim?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theorySpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pmWhat 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?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theorySpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false
type-theory.png
Rinse/repeat.Wyman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 amA '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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:53 pmWhat 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?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm We can all use this very sentence to make truth claims about other sentences.
The problem is whether you interpret the sentence in context of classical logic or type theorySpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:47 pm The sentence is simple and easily understood. So, what's the problem?
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=LkD ... 22&f=false
type-theory.png
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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:50 amRinse/repeat.Wyman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 amA '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 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
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?
My answer - to most questions is that there are at least 20 theories of truth.Wyman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:24 pmIf 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.