The Liar's paradox

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Wyman
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Wyman » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:18 pm

Logik wrote:
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


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.
A discussion of truth theories would be great and apropos of this thread. You forgot Ramsey's redundancy theory of truth, which I always favored. I'd have to brush up on it to really explain it well though. Maybe later this week.

Tarski's truth condition wase developed in his attempt to solve the liar's paradox ('Snow is white' is true iff snow is white). What happens when you plug in the sentence we're discussing - 'This sentence is false' is true iff this sentence is false. It does absolutely no good - what do you think?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:24 pm

Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:18 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:55 pm
Wyman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:24 pm


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.
A discussion of truth theories would be great and apropos of this thread. You forgot Ramsey's redundancy theory of truth, which I always favored. I'd have to brush up on it to really explain it well though. Maybe later this week.

Tarski's truth condition wase developed in his attempt to solve the liar's paradox ('Snow is white' is true iff snow is white). What happens when you plug in the sentence we're discussing - 'This sentence is false' is true iff this sentence is false. It does absolutely no good - what do you think?
What I think is discussing truth is like discussing the taste of the rainbow.

Outside of formal logic - it is a total waste of
time.

Tarski's undefinability theorem (if you accept that it applies to all assertions and semantics and not just arithmetic) effectively tells us that the criteria by which assert the truth of English sentences cannot be defined in English.

The only winning move is to not play.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:47 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:24 pm
What I think is discussing truth is like discussing the taste of the rainbow. Outside of formal logic - it is a total waste of time. Tarski's undefinability theorem (if you accept that it applies to all assertions and semantics and not just arithmetic) effectively tells us that the criteria by which assert the truth of English sentences cannot be defined in English. The only winning move is to not play.
So, why are you here at all?!
Given that this is a forum, and mostly in English and not at all in "formal logic", which is crap anyway, why are you here at all?!
Your posture is morbidly absurd, and no, I can't define "absurd" without referring to the notion of truth.
Insane.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:50 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:55 pm
I already told you yet beyond logic “truth” is nonsense.
That's not true.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:47 pm
Given that this is a forum, and mostly in English and not at all in "formal logic", which is crap anyway, why are you here at all?!
Your posture is morbidly absurd, and no, I can't define "absurd" without referring to the notion of truth.
Insane.
EB
I am here for reasons that you can't understand - so I won't try to explain.

Is this forum mostly in "English"? Is that British or American English? I struggle to tell the difference; or the similarity?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you did start a thread on Liar's paradox, right? Which is a fundamental problem in formal logic. Right?
You have 3 other threads which ask us to determine the soundness/validity of a bunch of arguments. RIght?

Soundness, validity, completeness, consistency etc. are all properties of logical systems.
https://llbahsciencephilosophy.wordpres ... pleteness/

So if you don't want to be discussing those aspects why did you start all those threads?

Perhaps (and this is just my hypothesis) you don't understand what the connection is between formal logic and natural languages.
Perhaps this is why you keep appealing to dictionary definitions? Too bad...

The dictionary won't help you understand the concepts of soundness, validity, completeness, consistency. You have to exercise your own brain for that.
Last edited by Logik on Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:12 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:21 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:50 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:55 pm
I already told you yet beyond logic “truth” is nonsense.
That's not true.
EB
Great! Then You can provide the algorithm by which you've asserted that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

And if my challenge doesn't make any sense to you then let me don on my atruism hat.

I am an atruist. I reject Truth like atheists reject the existence of God. And I am just going to regurgitate all the tired old arguments atheists use against theists. Starting with.

Have you examined and considered all the other possible theories of Truth (Gods!)? There are so many of them!
If you've simply settled into the definition of Truth (God!) that your society/community force-fed you then how do you know your Truth (God!) is the right one?

Truth-seeking is a prison for your mind! You are still concerned with WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:51 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:47 pm
Given that this is a forum, and mostly in English and not at all in "formal logic", which is crap anyway, why are you here at all?!
you did start a thread on Liar's paradox, right? Which is a fundamental problem in formal logic. Right?
The Liar was already discussed aven before Aristotle and possibly contributed to his formal logic as he did comment on it.
So, yes, it was indeed a fundamental problem in formal logic and it still is, however not in the same sense that it is a problem in mathematical logic.
So, basically, you seem to be confusing the two. I started a thread on formal logic, not on mathematical logic. See?
I guess being insane doesn't help.
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
You have 3 other threads which ask us to determine the soundness/validity of a bunch of arguments. RIght?
Same thing. Formal logic.
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
Soundness, validity, completeness, consistency etc. are all properties of logical systems.
Well, no, because as you should know different systems may have different notions of validity. Basically, I'm good using Aristotle's notion of validity as implicit in his syllogistic.
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
So if you don't want to be discussing those aspects why did you start all those threads?
What makes you think I don't want to discuss validity?
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
Perhaps (and this is just my hypothesis) you don't understand what the connection is between formal logic and natural languages.
Perhaps this is why you keep appealing to dictionary definitions? Too bad...
As of now, nobody seems to know how to formalise the logic of a natural language.
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm
The dictionary won't help you understand the concepts of soundness, validity, completeness, consistency. You have to exercise your own brain for that.
Yeah, I know, I know.
So, why don't you try it?
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:21 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:50 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:55 pm
I already told you yet beyond logic “truth” is nonsense.
That's not true.
EB
Great! Then You can provide the algorithm by which you've asserted that.
Algorithm?
Give me the algorithm by which you know your arse from your mouth.
Irrelevant.
No mention of "truth".
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:21 pm
And if my challenge doesn't make any sense to you then let me don on my atruism hat.I am an atruist. I reject Truth like atheists reject the existence of God. And I am just going to regurgitate all the tired old arguments atheists use against theists. Starting with. Have you examined and considered all the other possible theories of Truth (Gods!)? There are so many of them!
If you've simply settled into the definition of Truth (God!) that your society/community force-fed you then how do you know your Truth (God!) is the right one? Truth-seeking is a prison for your mind! You are still concerned with WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.
Irrelevant.
You don't seem to speak English too well?!
Here is what the English-language word "truth" means for proficient English speakers:
Truth
a. Conformity to fact.
Still, maybe you being insane makes facts sort of elusive.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm
Irrelevant.
No mention of "truth".
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
There is no mention of "God" in a physics textbook either. Science doesn't concern itself with "truth".

That's a philosophical endeavour. Scientists prefer to distance themselves from such sophistry.

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm
Here is what the English-language word "truth" means for proficient English speakers:
Truth
a. Conformity to fact.
Still, maybe you being insane makes facts sort of elusive.
EB
A fact? So you are appealing to the correspondence theory of truth?

Can you give me an example of a “fact”?

Pity you aren't as proficient in epistemology and applied science as you are in English, because if you were you might define "truth" like I do.

Bullshit.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:02 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm
Here is what the English-language word "truth" means for proficient English speakers:
Truth
a. Conformity to fact.
A fact? So you are appealing to the correspondence theory of truth?
I was quite clearly appealing to an English dictionary to provide a clear definition of the word "truth" as used by people who're not insane.
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm
Can you give me an example of a “fact”?
???
Gosh, you don't even know what a fact?!
Fact
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
So, I have to infer that you don't know any fact yourself. Whoa.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:02 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm
Here is what the English-language word "truth" means for proficient English speakers:
A fact? So you are appealing to the correspondence theory of truth?
I was quite clearly appealing to an English dictionary to provide a clear definition of the word "truth" as used by people who're not insane.
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:26 pm
Can you give me an example of a “fact”?
???
Gosh, you don't even know what a fact?!
Fact
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
So, I have to infer that you don't know any fact yourself. Whoa.
EB
So all facts are past tense? Interesting...

If they are past tense then you can’t witness them OR validate them yorself?

So there is a non-zero possibility that facts could be false?

Also. I don’t know what knowledge is. I have various degrees of certainty about various things, but I don’t know anything about anything.

I don’t think I am insane. I do think that people who think they know anything are insane.

Or just - very ignorant.

You are very ignorant. Your understanding of reality is grounded in language and definitions.

You can’t actually synthesise new understanding. Or new ways of perceiving the world.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:30 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:02 pm
Fact
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
So all facts are past tense? Interesting...
Good point but you likely misunderstand it.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
If they are past tense then you can’t witness them OR validate them yorself?
So, yes, you misunderstand it.
Try again: a fact is an event or thing known to have happened or existed. It's pretty straightforward. If you can't get it right, then you're insane (I'm assuming from the start you're not a complete idiot).
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
So there is a non-zero possibility that facts could be false?
No. Zero possibility.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Also. I don’t know what knowledge is.

OK, so you don't understand what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't know what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't understand the very sentence you've just asserted.
So, you're just insane.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I have various degrees of certainty about various things, but I don’t know anything about anything.
So you don't know that's true.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I don’t think I am insane.
This is indeed what insane people think.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I do think that people who think they know anything are insane.
How would you go about proving that, though?
Because it seems rather mundane to think you know something. Everybody will at some point in his life think "I know that...".
So, basically, you think everybody else is insane!
Which, then, is consistent with you being insane.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:30 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:02 pm
So all facts are past tense? Interesting...
Good point but you likely misunderstand it.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
If they are past tense then you can’t witness them OR validate them yorself?
So, yes, you misunderstand it.
Try again: a fact is an event or thing known to have happened or existed. It's pretty straightforward. If you can't get it right, then you're insane (I'm assuming from the start you're not a complete idiot).
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
So there is a non-zero possibility that facts could be false?
No. Zero possibility.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Also. I don’t know what knowledge is.

OK, so you don't understand what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't know what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't understand the very sentence you've just asserted.
So, you're just insane.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I have various degrees of certainty about various things, but I don’t know anything about anything.
So you don't know that's true.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I don’t think I am insane.
This is indeed what insane people think.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I do think that people who think they know anything are insane.
How would you go about proving that, though?
Because it seems rather mundane to think you know something. Everybody will at some point in his life think "I know that...".
So, basically, you think everybody else is insane!
Which, then, is consistent with you being insane.
EB
Bandwagon fallacy.

By Occam’s razor ( and since I am providing references for all my “insanity”) I would venture a guess that the simpler explanation is your ignorance, not my insanity. This is further supported by your “zero possibility for the facts to be wrong” attitude.

You are dogmatic.

I can determine that I don’t know anything because I don’t know how to solve the problems of justification or criterion in epistemology. They are as yet unsolved.

If you think you know something the surely you have solved them? Tell us how.

To the fool anything he doesn’t understand is insanity. Not for once ocuring to him that his own understanding is limited.

Age
Posts: 3603
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:08 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:30 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm

So all facts are past tense? Interesting...
Good point but you likely misunderstand it.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
If they are past tense then you can’t witness them OR validate them yorself?
So, yes, you misunderstand it.
Try again: a fact is an event or thing known to have happened or existed. It's pretty straightforward. If you can't get it right, then you're insane (I'm assuming from the start you're not a complete idiot).
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
So there is a non-zero possibility that facts could be false?
No. Zero possibility.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Also. I don’t know what knowledge is.

OK, so you don't understand what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't know what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't understand the very sentence you've just asserted.
So, you're just insane.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I have various degrees of certainty about various things, but I don’t know anything about anything.
So you don't know that's true.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I don’t think I am insane.
This is indeed what insane people think.
Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:28 pm
I do think that people who think they know anything are insane.
How would you go about proving that, though?
Because it seems rather mundane to think you know something. Everybody will at some point in his life think "I know that...".
So, basically, you think everybody else is insane!
Which, then, is consistent with you being insane.
EB
Bandwagon fallacy.

By Occam’s razor ( and since I am providing references for all my “insanity”) I would venture a guess that the simpler explanation is your ignorance, not my insanity. This is further supported by your “zero possibility for the facts to be wrong” attitude.

You are dogmatic.

I can determine that I don’t know anything because I don’t know how to solve the problems of justification or criterion in epistemology. They are as yet unsolved.
You forgot to add that they are as yet unsolved 'TO YOU'.

Just because a solution has not yet been shown TO YOU does NOT mean that that thing has as yet not been solved and the solution does not yet exist.

Depending on your definitions, the so called "problems" of justification or criterion in epistemology has already been solved.
Logik wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 pm
If you think you know something the surely you have solved them? Tell us how.

To the fool anything he doesn’t understand is insanity. Not for once ocuring to him that his own understanding is limited.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Liar's paradox

Post by Logik » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:31 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:08 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:30 pm

Good point but you likely misunderstand it.

So, yes, you misunderstand it.
Try again: a fact is an event or thing known to have happened or existed. It's pretty straightforward. If you can't get it right, then you're insane (I'm assuming from the start you're not a complete idiot).

No. Zero possibility.

OK, so you don't understand what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't know what it means to not know what knowledge is.
So, you don't understand the very sentence you've just asserted.
So, you're just insane.

So you don't know that's true.

This is indeed what insane people think.

How would you go about proving that, though?
Because it seems rather mundane to think you know something. Everybody will at some point in his life think "I know that...".
So, basically, you think everybody else is insane!
Which, then, is consistent with you being insane.
EB
Bandwagon fallacy.

By Occam’s razor ( and since I am providing references for all my “insanity”) I would venture a guess that the simpler explanation is your ignorance, not my insanity. This is further supported by your “zero possibility for the facts to be wrong” attitude.

You are dogmatic.

I can determine that I don’t know anything because I don’t know how to solve the problems of justification or criterion in epistemology. They are as yet unsolved.
You forgot to add that they are as yet unsolved 'TO YOU'.

Just because a solution has not yet been shown TO YOU does NOT mean that that thing has as yet not been solved and the solution does not yet exist.

Depending on your definitions, the so called "problems" of justification or criterion in epistemology has already been solved.
Logik wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 pm
If you think you know something the surely you have solved them? Tell us how.

To the fool anything he doesn’t understand is insanity. Not for once ocuring to him that his own understanding is limited.
In 2019 we don’t care about truth by revelation.

The last guy who revealed Truth got nailed to a cross...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests