XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 11/29/25 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Semantic tautologies are always final even   
   >> if no one understands them.   
   >>   
   >> Any expression of language that is proven true   
   >> entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed   
   >> in language is a semantic tautology.   
   >   
   > not bad polcott, i agree 💯 i think...   
   >   
   > mikko is refuted on that point   
   >   
      
   Great. I think that you are I are the only   
   one that care about these kind of truths.   
      
   Literally everyone else here only cares about   
   finding fault at the expense of truth. Mike   
   might be the only exception. Even he appears   
   to be much more focused on defending the status   
   quo than accurately assessing new ideas.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)