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 58,487 of 59,235    |
|    Mikko to All    |
|    Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox    |
|    29 Nov 25 10:55:46    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:   
   > 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   
      
   Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing   
   is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or   
   are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and   
   probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said   
   enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"   
   is in philosophy.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- 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