home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 58,472 of 59,235   
   olcott to All   
   Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox   
   28 Nov 25 12:10:25   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/28/2025 11:29 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:   
   >>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> This sentence is not true.   
   >>>> It is not true about what?   
   >>>> It is not true about being not true.   
   >>>> It is not true about being not true about what?   
   >>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.   
   >>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never   
   >>>> gets to the point.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language   
   >>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>> LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   >>>> False.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the   
   >>>> resolution of an expression remains stuck in   
   >>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory   
   >>>> LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)   
   >>>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))   
   >>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox   
   >>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*   
   >>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf   
   >>   
   >> Nothing is final in philosophy.   
   >   
   > self-contradictory statement bro   
   >   
   > clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final   
   > then that premise would become final and contradict itself   
   >   
      
   He only seems to care about rebuttal at the expense of truth.   
      
   >>   
   >> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible   
   >> because there is no syntax for definitions.   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca