XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > dart200  wrote:   
   >> does the logical construction:   
   >   
   >> "this sentence is false"   
   >   
   >> place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:   
   >   
   >> yes/no???   
   >   
   > No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a   
   > mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.   
   >   
      
   If that was true then there would be at least   
   one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.   
   There are none. Not even the greatest expert   
   in the field of *Truthmaker Maximalism* will   
   commit to the statement that the Liar Paradox   
   is not a valid proposition.   
      
      I do not mean to commit myself to the claim   
      that denying that the Liar expresses a proposition   
      is the best solution to the Liar paradox, nor do   
      I want to commit Truthmaker Maximalism to that claim.   
      
   *Truthmaker Maximalism defended*   
   https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD   
      
   Beyond this there are many "undecidable" instances   
   of decision problems that are only {undecidable}   
   because they do not reject semantically unsound   
   expressions.   
      
      
      
   >> --   
   >> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   >> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
   >   
   >> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   >   
   >> ~ nick   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)