That seems false. Just take the Liar and it gives you a grounded truth value to start with (namely falsity). Of course, that value will entail the con...
Ah my mistake, I must have misread something during my last response. When I read this: I understood it as saying that "false" was not part of the sen...
I think all you're really doing is denying the possibility of self-reference, because the Liar is constructed within a semantically closed language un...
Isn't it just Tarski's undefinability theorem and why he advocated the metalanguage hierarchy? If the language has negation, self-reference and the di...
To be fair, I just enjoy reading about dialetheism because it gets at a lot of intuitions we take as plausible and shows that we have to either accept...
Well yea it's using the T-schema to pull out the Liar. If you think the unrestricted catch and release rules are correct, it entails a contradiction. ...
I'm confused, why are you substituting the value in for the self-reference? The liar isn't "False is false". Like the point of my "This sentence is tr...
Ugh, look I'm assuming this is a word salad because it reads as if it's trying too hard to be profound, but if I must: "Before becoming" it isn't a th...
Michael said: My objection was that he was incorrect, because that's not how they were defined. I took the T-schema and so said that "True(x)" has the...
Ah so you were objecting to the T-schema, in which case my formulation of the argument for the paradox isn't available. I think Tarksi's hierarchy of ...
...Noted, but the problem is that if referring to its own interpretation were actually inherently problematic then the following ought to produce a si...
But truth (and falsity) is just another predicate, I don't see the principle difference between self-referring to that and self-referring to some othe...
It is the same thing, specifically asserting its own untruth (or if you want to go deeper, both versions of the paradox I gave make use of what Graham...
Wouldn't it be better to say something like "The universe can be modeled by a mathematical or logical system"? Because reality and formal systems (or ...
Because it's the same type of paradox caused by the same feature. If a purported solution dissolves one version but not another it simply isn't a solu...
Just take the T-schema. 'x' is true just if it is the case that 'x'. So if you have some proposition as follows: ¬True(x) <=> x You get a liar. To exp...
How is it not in the realm of a deductive truth? It's taking bivalence and using it to derive a contradiction when applied to a certain kind of self-r...
@OP I just go with Dialetheism, personally. Also, there is no official position on the Liars. The only agreement among logicians seems to be that no o...
Show an error in reality. Computers have scores of errors all the time, and it's not really hard to find them. Where are the equivalent of crashes in ...
Yep, "min()" would definitely be conjunction then, since if the values of both conjuncts isn't 1, the conjunction comes out as false (as it should). S...
Huh? By accepting my math example you've already conceded the point. The concept of a contradiction does not require time. That doesn't mean no contra...
1) is just saying that the truth-value of the disjunction will be the largest number of the respective values of the disjuncts, I suppose. the "max()"...
That doesn't make sense. If, as you have said, that logic is fundamental to reality there is no possible situation where disjunction introduction is i...
Disjunction introduction is a valid rule of inference and it is not a valid rule of inference. That's a contradiction yet clearly it's not making refe...
It's not the referent of the sentence, it's the referent of a word (although that's a bit misleading since "black" or blackness aren't objects). An ob...
I really don't know how to get through to you. We know that in a certain sense, Newtonian physics is wrong (even if close enough to true below light s...
No, you are making a *reference* to the property of blackness, the *referent* of the sentence is the dog in question. Even if it turns out to be the c...
...What? This seems like an incoherent view. A property is some entity which can be predicated of an object, not objects themselves. In "My dog is bla...
Oh bullshit man. The current view of the nature of the universe, even just from the standpoint of physics, has radically changed since the 17th centur...
You'd have to be assuming that because otherwise there's no reason to suggest they do not exist when not perceived. If we know an object, O, exists wh...
Ok, no one is advocating the same sort of materialism as in the 17th century. There's a reason a few people have mentioned "physicalism". You are simp...
You're being too pedantic. Obviously questions aren't truth-apt, I was referring to the proposition to which your question was about: Objects either e...
Well I can raise a question about any old thing I want. Perhaps mathematical truths are only true when a conscious being considers their truth value. ...
A state isn't an object, it cannot be physical. If one equates brain states with consciousness, one is not saying a "state" is a physical thing nor do...
A "state" in this case can be understood as the way the world is, some particular arrangement that you pick out in a proposition or sentence or someth...
When you're doing logic, you're using these rules and axioms to derive other truths. That's what logical consequence is, no? Like, if I have "A & B" t...
I already answered this. Even if I assume time is relative in the way you suggest, the LNC forbids a proposition and its negation from being true in t...
From your OP I assumed you accepted that objects that we perceive exist. If that is the case, to give any reason to believe they do not exist when unp...
So you say, and yet the entire point of this view (non-reflexive logics and the referenced view in QM) is that it might be the case that you can have ...
One can construct a language (easily in fact) where equality is not part of the language, ergo identity isn't. Your forumlation of identity is incorre...
Comments