Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 1 Jan 2008 11:22:37 -0800
Newberry says...
There are plenty of examples in English where a grammatically correct
sequence has more than one possible interpretation. The ambiguity is
usually resolved by context. Are you saying that
This sentence is not true. (1)
and
"This sentence is not true" is not true. (2)
are saying the same thing because they both refer to
"This sentence is not true"?
Yes, that's the essence of the liar paradox, that
a sentence and its negation seem to be paraphrases
of each other.
Look, the ambiguity of reference is *not* the
issue here. Once again, let's try this exercise:
Define a string of symbols to be "truish" if it
is the same string of symbols as some true sentence.
Now, let sentence number 42 be the sentence:
42. Sentence number 42 is not truish.
Is sentence number 42 truish? If the answer is "yes",
that leads to a contradiction. If the answer is "no",
that also leads to a contradiction.
It's the same contradiction as the Liar paradox, except
instead of asking whether the liar sentence is true, we
instead ask whether sentence 42 is truish. So "tokenism"
doesn't save you from the paradox.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- From: Newberry
- Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- References:
- Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- From: Newberry
- Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- Next by Date: Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|