Philosophy Now Forum

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true nature B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

There are two answers that occur immediately to me.

The first:


In one condition the person is a liar, in another the person is not a liar. In the magnitude of all possible conditions this person is both a liar and not a liar. Each condition that occurs reveals the potentiality of said person's inmate qualities thus these qualities exist simultaneously until a specific condition occurs. The solution, and I have had discussions with AI over this that back up my stance, is that paradoxes are superpositioned logical states.



Second:


Another answer is everything the person says is a half truth, necessitating a lie, and a half lie, necessitating a truth. All assertions have gradient truth values where truth and falsity are less of a binary assertion and more of a gradient way of viewing things. The person being both a liar and truth teller points to a gradient viewpoint.



So there are two answers, both legitimate:

Paradoxes are superpositioned assertions.
Paradoxes are gradient assertions.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm What is the solution or meaning of this?

The solution is to realize that the two statements are non-propositional statements, and that as such, they have no truth value.

In order for a statement to be a propositional one, it must have a valid reference to a portion of reality and a meaningful symbol describing what's in there.

The two statements miss a valid reference.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 8:39 pm

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm What is the solution or meaning of this?

The solution is to realize that the two statements are non-propositional statements, and that as such, they have no truth value.

In order for a statement to be a propositional one, it must have a valid reference to a portion of reality and a meaningful symbol describing what's in there.

The two statements miss a valid reference.

"I am a liar" is a propositional statement by degree of the assertion of symbols corresponding to a reality "I" and the state of reality "liar", which is a meta-reality.

There can be paradoxical truth values when context is not properly assigned, for instance: "It is both not snowing and snowing in Minnesota" is a paradox given multiple contexts are either ignored and/or viewed simultaneously. If each portion was properly contextualized the paradox ceases.

Paradoxes are contexts how are oriented, they are less of a problem and more of an expression of contextuality. The problem of paradoxes is the assumption that truth is strictly an "either/or" assertion and given gradient truths and contextual one, paradox is not necessarily a problem nor should be avoided.

I do not think the liar's paradox is a problem at all.

The paradox of paradoxes is the view point that paradoxes are necessarily problem given light to the distinction of a problem is merely an asserted assumption thus the nature of problem does not necessarily limit itself to a true or false assertion.

In simpler terms problems are assumed more than real in the conventional sense of real.

Paradoxes don't have 'solutions'. They aren't riddles.

Statements that are self referential are subject to being always true (without reference to anything else), always false (without reference to anything else) or paradox/inconsistent (without reference to anything else)

This sentence has five words.
This sentence has four words.
This sentence does not have seven words.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 10:42 pm Statements that are self referential are subject to being always true (without reference to anything else), always false (without reference to anything else) or paradox/inconsistent (without reference to anything else)

This sentence has five words.
This sentence has four words.
This sentence does not have seven words.

Ehhh...isomorphic statements, such as one and two above (opposite variations of self referential value being asserted), necessitates self-reference as a whole having simultaneous multiple truth values where the context of the self-referential content determines how self-reference is expressed. Sentences one and two both have the same foundation of self-reference, but this self reference is expressed in a dualistic way.

What I am saying is that context determines whether or not a paradox exists. Paradoxes are strictly observations of context and how it interacts. They are not problems but potential assertions that appear within a given framework.

The liar's paradox are all possible true and false assertions within a finite statement that exist simultaneously until a new context appears thus condensing the assertion to a specific truth value. Given no context, but self-referentiality, self-reference can be observed as what can be argued "value potentiality", multiple values that occur until a new context localizes the possibilities into one.

Without paradox there would be no possibilities for variations on assertions.

Paradoxes, using the terminology of quantum physics, are superpositioned assertions.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 10:26 pm Paradoxes don't have 'solutions'. They aren't riddles.

They are not problems either, there problemic nature is less of a nature and more of an assumption.

The recognition that the liar's paradox is a self-negating premise, no matter what its premise. It is futility, a dog chasing its own tail, never to catch it.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

The 'meaning' of 'this' is to show and just prove, absolutely, that some statements are just, in and of themselves, nonsense and nonsensical, and that it would be much better if not every thing that you 'look at' and/or 'read' is taken seriously.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true nature B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

There are two answers that occur immediately to me.

The first:


In one condition the person is a liar, in another the person is not a liar.

Well considering the irrefutable Fact that every adult person tells lies, then let 'is' 'look from' 'this condition', first, and only, instead.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm In the magnitude of all possible conditions this person is both a liar and not a liar.

Again, nonsensical.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm Each condition that occurs reveals the potentiality of said person's inmate qualities thus these qualities exist simultaneously until a specific condition occurs. The solution, and I have had discussions with AI over this that back up my stance, is that paradoxes are superpositioned logical states.

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of another one who can get so easily and so simply fooled and deceived by 'artificial intelligence', itself. So, imagine how easily and simply 'this one' could be fooled and deceived with 'actual Intelligence', Itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm Second:


Another answer is everything the person says is a half truth, necessitating a lie, and a half lie, necessitating a truth. All assertions have gradient truth values where truth and falsity are less of a binary assertion and more of a gradient way of viewing things. The person being both a liar and truth teller points to a gradient viewpoint.



So there are two answers, both legitimate:

Obviously to 'one' who has already been fooled, deceived, and tricked.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm Paradoxes are superpositioned assertions.
Paradoxes are gradient assertions.

What does the word, 'paradox', even mean, to you, exactly, "eodnhoj7".

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 8:39 pm

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm What is the solution or meaning of this?

The solution is to realize that the two statements are non-propositional statements, and that as such, they have no truth value.

In order for a statement to be a propositional one, it must have a valid reference to a portion of reality and a meaningful symbol describing what's in there.

The two statements miss a valid reference.

But, what even is 'reality', to you, exactly?

To know if you are referencing, validly, a 'portion of reality', then, firstly, and obviously, you would have to know what 'reality', itself, actually is, exactly.

So, are you able to inform the readers, here, of what the word, 'reality', is referring to, exactly?

If no, then okay.

But, if yes, then great, will you inform the readers, here, of what 'reality' is, exactly?

If no, then why not?

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

don't believe everything you read...

-Imp

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:54 am The recognition that the liar's paradox is a self-negating premise, no matter what its premise. It is futility, a dog chasing its own tail, never to catch it.

It simultaneously self-justified as there is a simultaneous truth value as well. A paradox is superpositioned, overlayed specifically, that coexist until a transformation in perspective is achieved.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 6:34 pm

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 21, 2025 4:09 pm https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ox.svg.png

A - The statement to the right is true nature B - the statement to the left is false

if A is true B is true, but if A is false then B if false, if B is false then A is true, if A is true then B is true

What is the solution or meaning of this?

There are two answers that occur immediately to me.

The first:


In one condition the person is a liar, in another the person is not a liar. In the magnitude of all possible conditions this person is both a liar and not a liar. Each condition that occurs reveals the potentiality of said person's inmate qualities thus these qualities exist simultaneously until a specific condition occurs. The solution, and I have had discussions with AI over this that back up my stance, is that paradoxes are superpositioned logical states.



Second:


Another answer is everything the person says is a half truth, necessitating a lie, and a half lie, necessitating a truth. All assertions have gradient truth values where truth and falsity are less of a binary assertion and more of a gradient way of viewing things. The person being both a liar and truth teller points to a gradient viewpoint.



So there are two answers, both legitimate:

Paradoxes are superpositioned assertions.
Paradoxes are gradient assertions.

So you are saying that both "true and false" together is between true and false, it is a gradient between those two. But how can you have true and false together without it cancelling each other out?