Re: Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions

[Anonymous]

olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will start simple with the most self-evident points
>
> *Smart people can understand that*
> "This sentence is not true."
>
> is not true and that does not make is true because
> if it was true then it would not be not true.
>
> It is also not false. If it was false then it would not
> be not true which would make it true. So smart people
> understand that it is neither true nor false.
>
> *Even smarter people can understand that when we ask*
>>>> Is this sentence (true or false): "This sentence is not true." ???<<<
> That neither true nor false is a correct answer.
>
> I will stop there until I have a good consensus.
>
>
>

The Tetralemma (Catuṣkoṭi) from Siddhartha Gautama is - as far as I know -
the oldest idea for a proper answer, where also BOTH and NONE are possible
values. Rudolf Kaehr has written a "diamond theory" about it - but of
course he had the best cybernetic "parents" like Norbert Wiener, Heinz von
Foerster and Warren McCulloch, who already explored the self-references of
our nervous system - today we can understand the world as infinitely
complex system consisting of positive and negative feedbacks. And your
little "paradoxon" is just a binary version of it. Fortunatelly, Gotthard
Guenther has learned us, how to look onto it from a new perspective by
leaving the one-dimensional true/false-logic.