Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:36:05 -0500
David Marcus wrote:
herbzet wrote:
Page 45: "Solution to the Liar paradox (Formal version). It is the
assumption of existence of a sentence given that satisfies
the Liar equation X := XF that causes contradiction in the
Liar paradox. In other words >>> there can be no sentence
given that says, of itself, that it is false. <<<
[emphasis mine]
Yes.
Consider this variant of the Liar:
This sentence-given is false.
This doesn't seem as paradoxical because we don't assume that "This
sentence-given is false" is a sentence-given. The solution to the Liar
is to realize that "This sentence-given is false" is a more precise way
of saying "This sentence is false", i.e., they mean the same thing.
--
David Marcus
.
- References:
- Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: herbzet
- Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- From: David Marcus
- Is Truth Mysterious?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is wittgensteins colour exclusion problem formalizable?
- Next by Date: Re: Recursive within enumerable?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Truth Mysterious?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|