Sentences are precisely the things that can be true or false. The truth predicate applies to sentences (or propositions). It does not apply to any oth...
Haha, that makes two of us! This discussion has been great; it made me think about it in greater detail than I had. But honestly, I think the proof is...
I think it may help the discussion to distinguish between private property and personal property. @"ChatteringMonkey" even if we accept the view of hu...
That assumption is discharged at step 5. in the proof. The reasoning from step 5 to 8 is what we get when we have (Li) is false as a theorem. We prove...
Hmm, the issue is that both (Li) and not-(Li) entail a contradiction. So the simple reductio argument to conclude not-(Li) won't suffice. Since not-(L...
Ok, I see (I hope!). This is just the denial of dialetheia: there are no true contradictions. This seems right, but it doesn't follow from this that (...
Hmm, I am not sure about this principle either. Perhaps you meant Russell's justification of the principle of simplicity, i.e. do not multiply entitie...
You have at least two inferences here. You should make them explicit and state the justification for each step. In particular, your last step is Truth...
Hmm, I think I understand your sentiment here, but (Li) is actually not the same as not-(Li). So it isn't a contradiction in this sense. Any sentence ...
I will respond to the second post you made. I believe you are reading too much into the inference. The inference from 1 to 2 is a simple syntactic sub...
What is the mistake in this inference? Yes, this is another response to the liar paradox! As you say, maybe the Liar Sentence is meaningless and if th...
Hey fdrake, I am actually using the same email address. I suspected the same thing so I checked, but the original activation email from over a year ag...
Comments