The Liar's paradox

[Logik]

x is x

y is y

There are not grammatically correct propositions in type theory.

x = x ⇒ True

or

x = x ⇒ False.

It's just a choice.

[Walker]

Whatever, but,

x is x

y is y

x is not y

Sky is Sky

Blue is Blue

Sky is not Blue

[Logik]

Whatever, but,

x is x

y is y

x is not y

Sky is Sky

Blue is Blue

Sky is not Blue

OK, I know you are trying to be prescriptive about classical logc, BUT you can f*** off with your linguistic prescriptivism.

We are trying to solve Liar's paradox. And you are insisting on using the logic which causes it.

[Walker]

I simply listed a series of truths.

Make of them what you will.

Now, you f*** off.

[Logik]

I simply listed a series of truths.

Make of them what you will.

Now, you f*** off.

No. You listed a bunch of axioms.

If you accept them as 'true' then so be it. I reject your simpleton religion.

To solve Liar's paradox you need a high-order logic. Like Type Theory.

[Eodnhoj7]

I simply listed a series of truths.

Make of them what you will.

Now, you f*** off.

No. You listed a bunch of axioms.

If you accept them as 'true' then so be it. I reject your simpleton religion.

To solve Liar's paradox you need a high-order logic. Like Type Theory.

You need a higher-order logic than type theory.

[Logik]

You need a higher-order logic than type theory.

Why?

[Eodnhoj7]

You need a higher-order logic than type theory.

Why?

You cannot avoid paradox at the general level when paradox is the foundation for all phenomenon. All measurement begins with a localization of some facet of "being". This in itself is an act of seperation resulting in a base dualistic state:

1) "Identity Axiom 1" as "△•△"

where "•" equivocates to any symbolic notation of relation and "△" equivocates to any variable, observes a base dualism where the act of observing a relation results in a basic dichotomy of the variable "△ and △" thus leaving the symbolic notation of "•" effectively undefined. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 2 an as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

2) "Identity Axiom 2" as "•△•"

The symbol notatation of relation, observed as "•" is in itself a variable and as a variable and can only be defined by a dichotomy. This "symbolic" variable of relation in turn is defined by the variables through which it relates; hence results in a base dualism. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 1 and as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

3) "Identity Axiom 3" as "◬"

The nature of the symbol of relation as variable and the variable existing through relation necessitates a dualism of form and function as observed by the dualistic nature of Points 1 and 2. This is a contradiction as there is no equilibrium to maintain a balance. This Dualistic nature of form/function in symbolism requires a form of inherent synthesis from which the dualism of Points 1 and 2 converge and diverge as Point 3 with Point 3 proven through Points 1 and 2.






The dichotomy of form and function where variable can be observed in a noun and verb state, can be further observed in the "metaphysics of language" thread.

[Logik]

You need a higher-order logic than type theory.

Why?

You cannot avoid paradox at the general level when paradox is the foundation for all phenomenon. All measurement begins with a localization of some facet of "being". This in itself is an act of seperation resulting in a base dualistic state:

1) "Identity Axiom 1" as "△•△"

where "•" equivocates to any symbolic notation of relation and "△" equivocates to any variable, observes a base dualism where the act of observing a relation results in a basic dichotomy of the variable "△ and △" thus leaving the symbolic notation of "•" effectively undefined. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 2 an as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

2) "Identity Axiom 2" as "•△•"

The symbol notatation of relation, observed as "•" is in itself a variable and as a variable and can only be defined by a dichotomy. This "symbolic" variable of relation in turn is defined by the variables through which it relates; hence results in a base dualism. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 1 and as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

3) "Identity Axiom 3" as "◬"

The nature of the symbol of relation as variable and the variable existing through relation necessitates a dualism of form and function as observed by the dualistic nature of Points 1 and 2. This is a contradiction as there is no equilibrium to maintain a balance. This Dualistic nature of form/function in symbolism requires a form of inherent synthesis from which the dualism of Points 1 and 2 converge and diverge as Point 3 with Point 3 proven through Points 1 and 2.






The dichotomy of form and function where variable can be observed in a noun and verb state, can be further observed in the "metaphysics of language" thread.

Why do you want to avoid paradox?

[Eodnhoj7]

Why?

You cannot avoid paradox at the general level when paradox is the foundation for all phenomenon. All measurement begins with a localization of some facet of "being". This in itself is an act of seperation resulting in a base dualistic state:

1) "Identity Axiom 1" as "△•△"

where "•" equivocates to any symbolic notation of relation and "△" equivocates to any variable, observes a base dualism where the act of observing a relation results in a basic dichotomy of the variable "△ and △" thus leaving the symbolic notation of "•" effectively undefined. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 2 an as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

2) "Identity Axiom 2" as "•△•"

The symbol notatation of relation, observed as "•" is in itself a variable and as a variable and can only be defined by a dichotomy. This "symbolic" variable of relation in turn is defined by the variables through which it relates; hence results in a base dualism. This is isomorphically reflected in Point 1 and as such is determined by it and observed as a divergence of and convergence to Point 3.

3) "Identity Axiom 3" as "◬"

The nature of the symbol of relation as variable and the variable existing through relation necessitates a dualism of form and function as observed by the dualistic nature of Points 1 and 2. This is a contradiction as there is no equilibrium to maintain a balance. This Dualistic nature of form/function in symbolism requires a form of inherent synthesis from which the dualism of Points 1 and 2 converge and diverge as Point 3 with Point 3 proven through Points 1 and 2.






The dichotomy of form and function where variable can be observed in a noun and verb state, can be further observed in the "metaphysics of language" thread.

Why do you want to avoid paradox?

I am not avoiding one, just using it as a solution where it negates itself.

[Logik]

I am not avoiding one, just using it as a solution where it negates itself.

Why do you want paradox to negate itself?

[Eodnhoj7]

I am not avoiding one, just using it as a solution where it negates itself.

Why do you want paradox to negate itself?

Why wouldn't a paradox negate itself, it wouldn't be paradoxical if it didn't.

[Logik]

Why wouldn't a paradox negate itself, it wouldn't be paradoxical if it didn't.

You are answering the question with a question.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why wouldn't a paradox negate itself, it wouldn't be paradoxical if it didn't.

You are answering the question with a question.

All questions are the contextualization of answers.

[Logik]

Why wouldn't a paradox negate itself, it wouldn't be paradoxical if it didn't.

You are answering the question with a question.

All questions are the contextualization of answers.

Why contextualise answers?