The Liar Paradox

[davecraw]

You've probably encountered this but curious how you evaluate this claim:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

[Hojo]

whats deciding you cant ask for truth

Edited May 27, 2023 by Hojo

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false

You have to make a statement first. 

"This is false" is all the information we have right now.

How are we supposed to know what "This" is pointing to?

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false."

"This statement is false" is not a statement, it's an evaluation. So a more accurate way to say it would be: "This evaluation is false" . Then the quation would follow, evaluation of what? 

It's impossible to determine whether the evaluation is accurate or not because we don't know what it was trying to evaluate to begin with.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Salvijus

[Kuba Powiertowski]

It’s a liar paradox, not a statement paradox. You are all missing the point.

[Kuba Powiertowski]

Liar says: this statement is false. Although much better example is: everyone lies. If everyone lies that means that the speaker who says this sentence also lie because belongs to „everyone set”. This way is more clear. This paradox is often use to point out the deep meaning of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Because to answer this paradox You need to go beyond „algorhytmic understanding set” and enter the Level of „meta-understanding” which is non-algorhytmic. That is why A.I. will never reach this level. You need to build Artificial Consciousness and but first create another multi page thread about it?

[Salvijus]

35 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Liar says: everyone lies

What if I rephrased it like:

"A person who always gives inaccurate information says: everyone is a lier. Is it true or false?"

Very easy it would be to confirm this one if it's true or not imo.

Another one

"A person who always gives inaccurate information says: this information is false. Is it true or false?"

The answer is "it is not false" because if a person who always gives inaccurate evaluation says, something is wrong, that means it's not wrong.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Salvijus

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Salvijus still missing the point. This paradox shows you that only from meta-understanding level you can „see” that paradox = two solutions which one exclude the other. With every theorem that is algorhytmized such paradoxes are inevitable. This shows you also that human understanding is beyond computation. That Consciousness is beyond computation. That’s it. Good day, Bro❤️♾️?️?

[Salvijus]

@Kuba Powiertowski If you say so

As far as im concerned, i successfully showed how there's no paradox here. Just some fundamental flaws in the system that make it seem so.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Salvijus

[Kuba Powiertowski]

28 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

Embrace Your own understanding. You have got it precisely?

[Kuba Powiertowski]

That is why You are not a robot???

[Yimpa]

4 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

The statement is consciousness. Whether it’s true or not does not matter, because it is and has always been consciousness. 

CONSCIOUSNESS! 

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Embrace Your own understanding. You have got it precisely?

Of course i'm right, you don't have to tell me that.

[Yimpa]

8 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

That is why You are not a robot???

@DefinitelyNotARobot 

[Schizophonia]

This is not a paradox, it is a sophism.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

This here is a proof that lier's paradox doesn't exist. Lier's paradox can only happens when there's either a fundamental flaw from the very beginning. Or an impossible circumstances would have come together. Which automatically implies it will never ever going to happen. Hence lier's paradox got debunked, dismantaled, kicked in the balls, and thrown into a garbage bin ?

Edited May 27, 2023 by Salvijus

[Vibroverse]

It is like a glitch that happens in a game. Language is a human construct, therefore it is not a fully perfect system, therefore there might be paradoxes in it. When you think about it, even the concept of paradox itself is a concept, and that's why it has the capacity of failing at defining itself. And, of course, the concept of definition itself also is a concept. 

In the liar's paradox, when you atomize the syntactic structure of the sentence, you begin to see that the sentence itself is not referring to anything. It creates a loop by its own very configuration where it is referring to itself, and therefore that "itselfness" that it is referring to also carries that "itselfness" within itself. 

The statement refers to that which is impossible by its very definition. Then the idea of impossibility asks itself why it is the idea of impossibility. But the idea, or the set, of impossibilities is, by its very definition, the container of impossibilities. That's, i think, why we might approach this paradox as an examples of self dissolution which makes itself known by presence. 

 

 

[Water by the River]

On 27.5.2023 at 5:08 AM, davecraw said:

You've probably encountered this but curious how you evaluate this claim:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

Since Gödel Incompleteness Theorems we know that every conceptual system is either

a) partial, and (maybe) true

b) complete, and (always) false (here: always valid for a too large claim)

Has been proven mathematically. Your statement is one of the pointers to this deeper truth.

Metaphysically speaking: At the Absolute, all duality collapses, with that all pointers/words. Why? Because Infinite Reality contains them all. They are in Infinite Reality, not the other way round.

That also means if one applies ANY property/label/word on the Absolute/Infinite, one is done. A certain gladiator could use this Theorem of Godel very well, although I doubt the Mathematical Logic skills are there to actually use/get it. But yours truly also often errs.

And Leo has a video for it 

@Razard86 : Wanna try? Give Circular Logic the final coup de grace? Up for the task?

 

Bon Voyage! 

Selling Water by the River

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems