This sentence is false.

[Eudaimonist]

Mark I like your solution. Were you taught it or did you read it, or is it your own creation?

My memory isn't perfect, but I believe that I've created it. It's simply a matter of thinking as clearly as one can about the issue. It makes no sense to me that a sentence by itself can have a truth value, so there must be a final claim (after however much recursion) that does. That final claim can only be "this sentence" is "false", which doesn't really make any sense.

Part of the problem of this problem is that there are a number of ways to interpret the meaning of the sentence, but none of them successfully produce any clear-headed meaning, but only language games, and so I think the sentence should be regarded as unsuccessful. It's like entering bad code into a computer program. One should expect the compiler to complain, or for the computer to hang as it uses a badly designed recursive algorithm that has no stopping point that allows it to recurse back upwards and return a value.

What I should have said before isn't "where is the claim?" but instead "where is the directly resolvable claim"? Yes, "this sentence is false" is technically a claim, but it isn't (and doesn't contain) a resolvable claim. It's meaningless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nanopants]

Then "<some claim> is false" is itself a claim, right?

So if we said instead "This claim is false", would we be back to square one?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Then "<some claim> is false" is itself a claim, right?

So if we said instead "This claim is false", would we be back to square one?

What claim is the sentence referring to?

 

[Nanopants]

What claim is the sentence referring to?

The claim that I am not a stunningly handsome connoiseur of fine women, obviously.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The claim that I am not a stunningly handsome connoiseur of fine women, obviously.

Then such a claim is either true or false. How does that bring us back to square one?

 

[Nanopants]

Then such a claim is either true or false. How does that bring us back to square one?

Right then. We can quibble to you heart's delight some other time but could someone please remind me about why we are even bothering with this nonsense?

 

[cubinity]

Application of the idea:

A "day" defined as having one evening and one morning, as the Genesis account of creation claims, is assumed to be discussing the 24 hour days experienced by a stationary observer.

However, an observer in motion can hide behind the globe for a considerable duration, experiencing a considerably long night than delays morning.

Thus, to claim that a day simply defined as containing one evening and one morning specifically refers to a 24 hour period of time is false.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Right then. We can quibble to you heart's delight some other time but could someone please remind me about why we are even bothering with this nonsense?

Because the problem is interesting and the presented solution demonstrates a clever way of showing how it is not a paradox, because there are not actually any claims to contradict each other.

I have no idea why you're bothering with it though, if you consider it to be nonsense. After all, you made the choice of continuing the discussion; you can't ask us why you did it, we don't know.

 

[Nanopants]

Because the problem is interesting and the presented solution demonstrates a clever way of showing how it is not a paradox, because there are not actually any claims to contradict each other.

I have no idea why you're bothering with it though, if you consider it to be nonsense. After all, you made the choice of continuing the discussion; you can't ask us why you did it, we don't know.

And... what exactly am I referring to as being nonsense?

 

[cubinity]

Right then. We can quibble to you heart's delight some other time but could someone please remind me about why we are even bothering with this nonsense?

And... what exactly am I referring to as being nonsense?

Um... Perhaps you could tell us...

 

[Nanopants]

Um... Perhaps you could tell us...

What I was referring to doesn't really even matter. The point is that exploiting ambiguities as such is counterproductive and not very interesting, and that we are allowed to make assumptions concerning the semantics of a proposition in order to follow its logical consequences.

As it is, the liar's paradox is generally agreed upon to be self-referential.

 

[cubinity]

Right then. We can quibble to you heart's delight some other time but could someone please remind me about why we are even bothering with this nonsense?

And... what exactly am I referring to as being nonsense?

What I was referring to doesn't really even matter. <snip>

Perhaps you can now make it clear why you were even bothering referring to it if it doesn't matter.

 

[Nanopants]

Perhaps you can now make it clear why you were even bothering referring to it if it doesn't matter.

I already did.

 

[cubinity]

I already did.

You mean to say that you were referring to the exploiting of ambiguities as being counterproductive and not very interesting, and that we are allowed to make assumptions concerning the semantics of a proposition in order to follow its logical consequences, and that as it is, the liar's paradox is generally agreed upon to be self-referential?

But, that seems to matter considerably! Why would you say that doesn't matter?

 

[Nanopants]

You mean to say that you were referring to the exploiting of ambiguities as being counterproductive and not very interesting, and that we are allowed to make assumptions concerning the semantics of a proposition in order to follow its logical consequences, and that as it is, the liar's paradox is generally agreed upon to be self-referential?

But, that seems to matter considerably! Why would you say that doesn't matter?

The why is more important than the what in this case.

 

[cubinity]

The why is more important than the what in this case.

Ah, I see now. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[SithDoughnut]

And... what exactly am I referring to as being nonsense?

Presumably the topic of the OP, as that was what we were "quibbling" about.

EDIT: Although I see what you're saying now, and still disagree. The sentence is purposefully ambiguous in order to create the illusion of something that is not there. A claim cannot be a paradox, otherwise it isn't claiming anything. When you make an assumption, and it leads to a result that does not work, it stands to reason that your assumptions are wrong.