Comments on: More on The Liar Paradox http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/ For those who like to think... Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:16:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Acid reflux and prednisone. http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-4055 Acid reflux and prednisone. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:48:32 +0000 http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/#comment-4055 <strong>Canine prednisone....</strong> Can you give me some information about prednisone. Side effects of prednisone. Prednisone dose pack.... Canine prednisone….

Can you give me some information about prednisone. Side effects of prednisone. Prednisone dose pack….

]]> By: Daniel Haggard http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-1979 Daniel Haggard Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:31:06 +0000 http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/#comment-1979 Thinking about this stuff really does have that effect. Part of it has to do with the plausibility of the truth-conditional theory of meaning - that we only understand a sentence once we understand what conditions would have to obtain for the sentence to be made true. But once we reflect on liar sentences we realise we really don't understand their truth conditions. We then end up where you are and conclude that it is just meaningless. Thinking about this stuff really does have that effect. Part of it has to do with the plausibility of the truth-conditional theory of meaning – that we only understand a sentence once we understand what conditions would have to obtain for the sentence to be made true. But once we reflect on liar sentences we realise we really don’t understand their truth conditions. We then end up where you are and conclude that it is just meaningless.

]]> By: Alex http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-1976 Alex Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:38:27 +0000 http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/#comment-1976 Ah, I see about the second set. So it is, in a way, a quantum statement; both are both true and false at the same time. -.- was reading about quantum stuff in New Scientist a few weeks back. I was thinking about the paradox, when to my sudden amazement, I no longer understood what the sentence actually meant. Seriously, I could not comprehend either what the sentence meant, or what the paradox was! Wierd. The answer that I then came with was: "this sentence does not exist, it is an impossibility and does not mean anything". Ah, I see about the second set. So it is, in a way, a quantum statement; both are both true and false at the same time. -.- was reading about quantum stuff in New Scientist a few weeks back.

I was thinking about the paradox, when to my sudden amazement, I no longer understood what the sentence actually meant. Seriously, I could not comprehend either what the sentence meant, or what the paradox was! Wierd. The answer that I then came with was: “this sentence does not exist, it is an impossibility and does not mean anything”.

]]> By: Daniel Haggard http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-1972 Daniel Haggard Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:29:04 +0000 http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/#comment-1972 Hi Alex - great to see you back. Your first two sentences reproduce the liar paradox. If sentence A is true, then sentence B must be true. But if sentence B is true, then sentence A is false - contradicting our hypothesis. A contradiction similarly occurs if we assume A is false. As you point out - this example is used to point out that paradox is not caused by self-reference. Hence other solutions must be found that do not deny self-reference. Your second two sentences aren't paradoxical and have perfectly understandable truth conditions. If sentence A is true, then B must be false. If B is false, then A is true - which is what we started with - so that's fine. Similarly, if A is false, then B is true and B says that A is false, so that's also what we started with. Similar reasoning applies if you start with B in each case. Hi Alex – great to see you back.

Your first two sentences reproduce the liar paradox. If sentence A is true, then sentence B must be true. But if sentence B is true, then sentence A is false – contradicting our hypothesis. A contradiction similarly occurs if we assume A is false.

As you point out – this example is used to point out that paradox is not caused by self-reference. Hence other solutions must be found that do not deny self-reference.

Your second two sentences aren’t paradoxical and have perfectly understandable truth conditions. If sentence A is true, then B must be false. If B is false, then A is true – which is what we started with – so that’s fine. Similarly, if A is false, then B is true and B says that A is false, so that’s also what we started with. Similar reasoning applies if you start with B in each case.

]]> By: Alex http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-1962 Alex Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:17:23 +0000 http://danielhaggard.com/26/more-on-the-liar-paradox/#comment-1962 I can't read that whole pdf! Anyway, what happens if you write: A: Sentence B is true B: Sentence A is false or A: Sentence B is false B: Sentence A is false Could you ask Nick about this please? I believe it gets around the problem of what the sentence is refering to. The first situation may actually be possible, thinking about it. Gah. My brain hurts. I can’t read that whole pdf!

Anyway, what happens if you write:

A: Sentence B is true
B: Sentence A is false

or

A: Sentence B is false
B: Sentence A is false

Could you ask Nick about this please?

I believe it gets around the problem of what the sentence is refering to. The first situation may actually be possible, thinking about it.

Gah. My brain hurts.

]]>