Philosophy Now Forum

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 6:39 pm If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 7:23 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 6:39 pm If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

And using the good estimate of the English words I answered the question with a "No."

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? No, Carol cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question.

And you don't like it. Why?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 7:57 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 7:23 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 6:39 pm If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

And using the good estimate of the English words I answered the question with a "No."

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? No, Carol cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question.

And you don't like it. Why?

Finally an honest reply!

It is not that I don't like it.
It is that Carol's question for Carol is isomorphic to input D that does the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that halt decider H returns.

Carol's question posed to Carol and Input D to H are both examples of
self-contradictory questions thus are incorrect in the same way that
self-contradictory statements are incorrect.

With incorrect questions the blame for not correctly answering them
belongs with the question and not the one answering this question.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:30 am The question was correctly answered with a "No".

And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

Which is correct.

Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no”
is the correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says
“no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is her answer. So both answers are incorrect.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:54 pm Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
When anyone besides Carol answers "no" their answer is correct.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:30 am And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

Which is correct.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:54 pm In other words when Carol answers "no" that means that she
is saying that her answer of "no" is incorrect.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:30 am And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:54 pm If she is right then she just agreed that her current answer is wrong, otherwise she is wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:25 pm She is 100% right that her answering "no" is not right.

Carol is way smarter than you and skillfully avoids your lame attempts at contradictory entrapment.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:35 pm If she is 100% right that answering "no" is not right and she just
answered "no" then she acknowledged that the "no" answer that
she just provided is wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:44 pm Correct! Carol is right that her answering "no" is wrong.

Which sticks you with the recursive self-reference again.

Does Carol being right about being wrong make Carol right; or wrong.
Does Carol being wrong about being right make Carol right; or wrong.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:16 pm When Carol agrees that she is wrong this makes her right thus incorrect that she is wrong.
It is essentially merely a more complex case of the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true" is not true, yet that does not make it true.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:25 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:16 pm When Carol agrees that she is wrong this makes her right thus incorrect that she is wrong.
It is essentially merely a more complex case of the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true" is not true, yet that does not make it true.

Who cares if it's true? It's correct, meaningful and coherent.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:35 pm When Carol says "no" indicating that "no" is an incorrect answer
this makes "no" the correct answer thus not incorrect thus Carol is wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:23 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:35 pm When Carol says "no" indicating that "no" is an incorrect answer
this makes "no" the correct answer thus not incorrect thus Carol is wrong.

Yes. Carol said so herself! She said she's right about being wrong.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:34 pm Making her wrong.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:34 pm Does your input D halt on its input?
is a is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H
when D does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:26 pm Carol's question is not a computational setting.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:43 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:34 pm Making her wrong.

Yes, but she's right about that!