General > Off Topic
I am lying!
bacillus:
Ah, conscious deceit, the true measure of intelligence...
jknilinux:
Peter:
Sorry, philosophy is filled with unnecessary jargon. By P:"P is false", I meant to show the formal representation of the paradox in logic. I'm attaching Tarski's proof of the liar. Let me know if you have any questions.
Jez:
1: No statement can be both True and False. That violates the principle of bivalence. If something was both true and false, then you can logically prove ANYTHING- you exist, you don't exist, god exists, etc... Let me know if you want an elaboration.
2: Believe me, we have tried expanding the rules of logic and looking at it through other ways- no matter what, the liar can still be generated. For example, we can make up a third truth value, you, for undecidable, and the liar paradox has this truth value. But what about the statement "This sentence is not true"? If it's true, then it's not true, so it must be undecidable. But if it's undecidable, then that's just what it said- that it's not true, aka false or undecidable. So, it's true, and we get a contradiction all over again.
Then, maybe we can say a statement can never refer to it's own truth value. OK, that solves the one-line liar. But what about this:
1: 2 is false.
2: 3 is false.
3: 1 is false.
What is the truth value of 1? If it's false, then 2 is true, then 3 is false, so 1 is true. If 1 is true, then 2 is false, then 3 is true, so 1 is false. Again, a paradox, and it doesn't refer to it's self.
No matter what you do, it just doesn't go away.
Numsgil:
Are you saying that it's false? If it's false, then it's true.
If you're saying it's instead undecidable/meaningless, then that counts as a third truth value, which brings you back to "This sentence is not true", discussed above.
So, any way to save logic? Philetas of Cos was an ancient philosopher. His tombstone reads:
Greetings, stranger. Philetas of Cos am I.
'Twas the Liar that made me die
And the bad nights caused thereby.
Kinda creepy.
Moonfisher:
I think what numsgil was saying is that the sentense is just jiberish, and just because you can say giberish in a languare it doesn't make the langueage invalid, same would go for logic...
Sure you can express something that makes no sence through logic... you can also try to eat soup with a hammer and fail, but the hammer will still be good when used right.
You're more or less just creating an infinite loop... just like garbage collection won't catch 3 pointers that point at eachother with no entry... doesn't mean that garbage collection doesn't work, just means it isn't fool proof. Sure you can say that it's a flaw... but everything we do is flawed... you can't divide by 0 either, then you can set up a rule, but then you can say that X = X + 1... then X will never stop growing and always have a new value... doesn't mean that math is flawed... just means that once you get to a certain point rules aren't enough, you need to think about how you're applying the tools you have.
If what I'm saying seems like jibberish it's just because I'm fairly drunk... again IMHO this doesn't make english flawed, just means I'm drunk.
You can probably find a way around any rules concerning this, so in the end you would need a rules that states that your logic need to reach a finite answer or the entire statement is invalid.
Jez:
Cheers Peter,
I've only been back a couple of times but had noticed the new plans and am interested in how that pans out.
jk;
Had to look at this bivalence thingy but pretty quickly "Lukasiewicz introduced a third value" jumps out.
While I won't pretend to understand the depth to which logic can descend a 'third value' is what I had imagined the statement needed.
When it comes to logically proving anything: All the philosophers I have known have been pretty happy at their ability to argue that they can prove anything, the argument for a horse having an infinite number of legs jumps to mind.
While it was harder for me to picture the 1,2,3 statement I eventually figured that it was no different to saying [1: 1 is false], it's just a trick to take your attention away from the important bit, the distraction technique that illusionists use if you like.
peterb:
hmmm
in drwinbots it means simply
cond
x x !=
start
stop
or simpley x isnt true, so whatever x is doesnt matter. it might be some wisdom but from the perspeciteve of its carbon god it isnt true whatever it is.
Oke well that is fun, a type of fun that only gods can have. knowing of some genes that just don't fire. as the condintion would never happen. Dough on the other side, if a carbon based god would put such a logic in a silicon based heaven..
Then perhaps that silicon world woud behave different. And wel so it does.
Even the carbon gods rulers of darwinbots, note that over many generations you get problems with reproduction and DNA..
Hack that even happens in the carbon world..
Wel anyway in the end it means that after many cycles (and just a few errors in DNA copying) you'll see that there is answer to the problem rule.
Simply it was a condtition which never could be solved... until the condtition changed.. just by random DNA copy errors. suddenly x x != became x Y != or x x =
welll ofcourse you dont have to believe me, nor the rules of genetics, there are no rules for it..
DNA wouldnt allow me describe a rule, knowing that there are no absolutes, in the game of DNA some strings play a false game.
is that a trouble?? ... no rather it is a solution just chang the rules to get solved
No its rather a way of peeling around the main problem to survive and to solve a problems wich couldnt get solved before.
Unless you took different math..
Changing math always expanded science like SQR (-1) = ....
or like f(n) = 1 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 13 17 19 23
uh oh not invented yet...(or didnt it be not invented... [I lwill not say] .) )
In the end only real math brakes you trough the limits, and so it can set you free.
ehhmmm ok I admit just a few beeers......
still doupts did he have a prime function or not?, would he tell ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version