Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.

On Jan 2, 9:40 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
 Newberry says...







On Jan 1, 11:22=A0am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
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.

I have another Zen riddle for you.

It's not a Zen riddle, it's the liar paradox, in which
the word "truish" is being used instead of "true". The
only difference is that "truish" gets around the nit-picky
response that two syntactically identical sentences may
have different meanings. That response doesn't actually
help to resolve the liar paradox.

Forget about "truish."

I suggest, instead, that you forget your
"resolution" to the Liar paradox. It *isn't*
a resolution.

I think (1) is different than (2) because (1)
is self-referential and (2) is not. Your senetnce 42 only managed to
map two different sentences onto the same string. That proves nothing.

It proves that your resolution to the liar paradox is not a resolution!
The liar paradox remains even if you introduce your "tokenism". If you
don't like the word "truish", then spell it out what it means explicitly:

42. No sentence that is syntactically identical to sentence number 42 is
true.

56: Sentence number 42 is meaningless.

Where is the contradiction?


Is there a sentence that is syntactically identical to sentence number 42
that is true? If the answer is "yes", then you have a contradiction. If
the answer is "no", then you have a contradiction. The claim that sentence
42 is meaningless is *not* a resolution, as long as you maintain that
no meaningless sentence can be true.

Question. Is "This sentence itself is not true" equivalent to "This
sentence is not true? If so then

"This sentence itself" itself is not true

does not make any sense, and

"This sentence itself is not true" is not true

shows that the inner and outer senetnces are NOT identical.


I'm getting rather tired of this discussion. It is apparent to me
that your "resolution" of the Liar paradox is nothing of the sort.
It's a band aid that provides an ad hoc rule for preventing a
contradiction that arises from a specific form of the liar paradox,
but does not prevent other contradictions from slight variations
of the liar paradox.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liars paradox.
    ... Sentence number 42 is not truish. ... that also leads to a contradiction. ... help to resolve the liar paradox. ... It proves that your resolution to the liar paradox is not a resolution! ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Penrose vs the Robot
    ... >>Daryl McCullough wrote: ... >>> Rupert says... ... > contrast with the liar paradox, ... > a contradiction, but for the sentence to be *true* doesn't lead ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Alan Turings Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
    ... Peter Olcott says... ... >> Now let Qbe a (rather pointless) program defined in terms ... >is analogous to asking whether or not the Liar Paradox ... contradiction if you assume that H*always* returns ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liars paradox.
    ... are saying the same thing because they both refer to ... the ambiguity of reference is *not* the ... Sentence number 42 is not truish. ... that also leads to a contradiction. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Where is the paradox in liar?
    ... is the contradiction? ... That's only a definition difference. ... except that this variant forestalls the resolution that ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading