tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275564726873174.post3300398074612363458..comments2019-08-29T19:52:51.645-07:00Comments on چهارباغ: (Interrupting myself)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275564726873174.post-51118431835821807842010-10-05T17:40:10.662-07:002010-10-05T17:40:10.662-07:00I've never heard of this paradox before. I ce...I've never heard of this paradox before. I certainly wouldn't know how to quantify it. Trying to prove the truth of a statement whose essence includes a falsehood is futile. What makes us dismiss it so easily at first glance is our humanity - our understanding that there exists no perfect human, and no perfect (or rather, consistent) liar. "Liar" can be used as a description of a human being, but never as a definition. A person would see the paradox and know that it exists in a realm apart from reality. As logic excludes emotion, no human interpretation of information is logical entirely, and no explanation of the world can be scientific entirely. It is our humanity that tells us this. There is no explaining the paradox within logic.Illanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517828104032857728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275564726873174.post-65985964029792488522010-04-09T08:49:25.590-07:002010-04-09T08:49:25.590-07:00Sir G, I think you're right about the "sh...Sir G, I think you're right about the "shrugging as calculation" bit. What I think is really interesting about this is the relationship between these calculations and the real world.<br /><br />By this I mean things like decision making. There's actually quite a bit of evidence to show that people aren't great at making certain kinds of decisions, but that they're consistent about their badness.<br /><br />We see this kind of stuff in the papers all the time, but I think one of the values of stuff like logic is that it lets us close the gap between our evolutionary decision making processes and what might actually be best for us.<br /><br />As for the worthlessness of this blog, I certainly didn't say that, I find it very valuable!Andrew W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00071098030747838202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275564726873174.post-453433038556959622010-04-07T12:58:08.083-07:002010-04-07T12:58:08.083-07:00Sir A
your just upbraiding is probably what I dese...Sir A<br />your just upbraiding is probably what I deserve for writing in haste: i did not mean to diss the liar's paradox: there are parts of reality in which we are utterly lost unless we can rely on logic; so fixing problems with logic is essential! rather, what i wanted to suggest is that the solution to the paradox may not lie in complex manoevres like object languages and so forth but in trying to figure out how it comes that most of us shrug when we hear it -- i.e. how it comes that we automatically know there is something wrong and -- well -- take it in our stride; i honestly think that by shrugging our shoulders thus we do perform some sort of logical calculation, and it probably does not involve anything as massive and complicated as object/metalanguages; think of this intuition as -- well, not "ordinary language philosophy" but -- shall we dare to coin a term? - "ordinary life logic", I suppose; anyway, just wanted to share with you a hunch on where the solution to the problem may lie; if, however, as you say, the paradox has really been solved, then the hunch is as worthless as the rest of this blog :)<br />glad it entertains you for all its worthlessness!Sir Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953581535133000686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275564726873174.post-69714911875615473212010-04-07T11:02:00.416-07:002010-04-07T11:02:00.416-07:00Sir G, I think you are a bit unfair to the liar...Sir G, I think you are a bit unfair to the liar's paradox! It has been solved, but the question it raised cut to the core of the Leibnizian idea of "Calculuare!", that we could devise an algorithm that could solve all our arguments. <br /><br />The reality of subject and object languages that the liar's paradox points to served as a necessary reminder when thinking one could create such an algorithm, which we now now is impossible!<br /><br />But you are right, it is a game for the mind, not important, but then, how is that different from all the beautiful stuff you show us here?Andrew W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00071098030747838202noreply@blogger.com