Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox"
Jerry Kraus
definable in English.
Proof. Suppose it is. Then so is its complement
"False".
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is false" .
Since the phrase "This sentence" refers to s, we
have
s iff "This sentence is false" iff "s is
false" iff not s.
A contradiction.
This concept, presented as a formal logical
presentation of the traditional liar's paradox "if the
liar says he is a liar, then he is telling the truth,"
can be applied directly to counselling psychology and
conflict resolution.
One of the biggest "relationship breakers" is the
statement "I know I'm right!". There is no effective
response, it cuts off all argument or discussion. An
informal presentation of the liar's paradox
effectively proves that there is no absolute truth:
"So, you know you're right?"
"Certainly."
"Then, you know when you're wrong?"
"Of course."
"Then, when you're wrong, you're wrong about it?
"What? No, when I'm wrong I'm right!"
"That doesn't make any sense."
Brian Fletcher
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164470080.5...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
An excellent illustration of the paradox of conflict.
Solution? Easy! I'm right , your right.
Try that with anyone who isnt ready, and they will be "out of there" (or
stay reluctantly).
Proof. The right consequences result in every action, the results of which,
changes our pov. The soul purpose.
BOfL
zinnic
Not what an innocent victim expresses as (s)he is brutally murdered!
But you know better?
> Proof. The right consequences result in every action, the results of which,
> changes our pov. The soul purpose.
Let us parse this.
You claim that consequences of actions result in the actions of which
they are consequent? The consequences of an action generates the
action?
This is so nonsensically ingressive. But then that is so you!. Admit
it is nonsense so that readers can take you more seriously.
You never explain, so presumably you not to understand what you say.
You spew out your meaningless "scriptures" like a fundamentalist
believer chanting loudly to drown out the voice of reality.
As science progresses, I guess that you will continue to retreat and
maintain that YOUR consciousness MUST be more than a complex
biochemical interaction.
But even as your mind reacts to this concept, science has the ability
to correlate your reaction with physicochemical changes that occur in
the meat known as your brain.
Given time,scientific knowledge will force you to retreat into the
claim that science will never explain everything. A position with
which scientist already agree.
Zinnic
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> The Liar Paradox. "Truth" for English sentences is not
> definable in English.
So we can ignore this post as representing the truth then.
Brian Fletcher
"zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:1164522735.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Zinnic the group interrigator. Whats this "we" business. Looking for
strength in numbers? (no pun intended).
> You claim that consequences of actions result in the actions of which
> they are consequent? The consequences of an action generates the
> action?
> This is so nonsensically ingressive.
Then why write it the way you did? You make the pov regarding the
philosophical version of "every action" is my invention.
You are becoming tiresome.
>But then that is so you!. Admit
> it is nonsense so that readers can take you more seriously.
It is nonsense, will you take me more seriously.
How does that sound.
>
> You never explain, so presumably you not to understand what you say.
You never understand therefor it must be nonsense, and yet you always
respond.
I know why, do you.In line with the thread, you are of course right to.
> You spew out your meaningless "scriptures" like a fundamentalist
> believer chanting loudly to drown out the voice of reality.
Thats what you hear and try to recruit others to your pov with your "we"
this and your "we" that.
> As science progresses, I guess that you will continue to retreat and
> maintain that YOUR consciousness MUST be more than a complex
> biochemical interaction.
Actually for decades I have continually identified confirmation from
scientific findings.
> But even as your mind reacts to this concept, science has the ability
> to correlate your reaction with physicochemical changes that occur in
> the meat known as your brain.
Meat analising meat. Sums your stage of receptivity very well
>
> Given time,scientific knowledge will force you to retreat into the
> claim that science will never explain everything.
Are you kidding? You actually confirm my view and and claim I am retreating.
>A position with
> which scientist already agree.
Thus sprach Zinnicthustra.
C'mon, "we" Zinnic needs you.
BOfL
> Zinnic
>
-Phil Clemence
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1164528735.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Everything I say is false.
If that is true, then it is false.
If it is false, as I claim, then something I say is true.
I think there is more, but that's as far as I can go without more coffee.
-Phil Clemence
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
-Phil Clemence wrote:
> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1164528735.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jerry Kraus wrote:
> >> The Liar Paradox. "Truth" for English sentences is not
> >> definable in English.
> >
> > So we can ignore this post as representing the truth then.
> >
>
> Everything I say is false.
> If that is true, then it is false.
> If it is false, as I claim, then something I say is true.
Well done. The paradox's are always man made.
> I think there is more, but that's as far as I can go without more coffee.
> -Phil Clemence
You dont need the coffee Phil, they do.
George Dance
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> The Liar Paradox. "Truth" for English sentences is not
> definable in English.
Of course it is. As Tarski pointed out using this same paradox,
"truth" cannot be defined in a semantically closed language without
contradiction, but there's no reason to think that English is
semantically closed.
> Proof. Suppose it is. Then so is its complement
> "False".
> Let s be the sentence "This sentence is false" .
> Since the phrase "This sentence" refers to s, we
> have
> s iff "This sentence is false" iff "s is
> false" iff not s.
> A contradiction.
As Tarski pointed out, that assumes that both:
I 'the language in which the antinomy is constructed contains, in
addition to its espresions, also the names of its expressions, as well
as semantic terms like 'true'"; and that
II "in this language the laws of logic hold".
Tarski rejected the first premise, that English was semantically
closed.
George Dance
Granted that one can't be right and wrong at the same time and the same
respect, without contradiction; if "you know" and "you're wrong" are
not in the same respect - "knowing A" vs. "being wrong about B" -
there's no contradiction. And that's the case here; the person is not
right about A (whatever it is wrong about) but is right about B
(whether he's right or wrong about A.
It's no more contradictory than:
1) I know whethere or not I know something.
2) Therefore I know when I don't know.
3) Therefore, if I don't know, then I know.
4) But if I know, then I don't know.
etc.
In this second case, it's clearer that 'I know' and 'I don't know' are
being used in different respects.