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 58,483 of 59,235    |
|    FromTheRafters to All    |
|    Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox    |
|    28 Nov 25 19:49:14    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: FTR@nomail.afraid.org   
      
   Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :   
   > On 11/28/2025 9:29 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   
   >   
   > How many digits does PI have?   
      
   10 in decimal.   
      
   --- 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