This appears to be another example of something I used a while back.

If John catches fish
Then John does not catch fish

If we are all different, then we are all of the same description.

If I do not have the cognitive ability to comprehend that statement, then what?

Liar paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For advanced thinkers.

Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Liar Paradox[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I, myself, think it is doubtful that there is any statement we are talking about. The trick is that the impression is given that there is one. Why would anyone think that the sentence, this statement is false, expresses a statement? What does the demonstrative pronoun- phrase, "this sentence" refer to?

I agree. 'This sentence' is not a sentence at all.

~p <-> (p is false)
ie. (This sentence, is false) <-> ~(This sentence).
But, ~(This sentence) is syntactic gibberish.

Like many paradoxes, we are trying to make sense of a non-referring description.

I believe the solution to the Liar Paradox is that: 'This sentence' does not exist as a proposition, therefore 'This sentence' is neither true nor false.

This sentence, is false..is meaningless.

Something like that.

There are so much on the topic. I really don` t know why you even ask such a question.

How about:
1) you're buying the beers
2) propositions 1 and 2 are both false
3) therefore, by LEM, you're buying the beers.

Translated to english, the answer to this question is chocolate cake.
How? you may ask, simple. If in a hypothetical language "this sentence is false" translates directly to what is your favorite snack, than the image that conjures into my mind is chocolate cake.

As this shows, since there is no universal, absolute meaning that can be assigned to something, the only meaning something has is whatever meaning I wish for it to have.

Take diamond, to some a diamond may hold a lot of meaning, but although it is reasonably rare, its made of atoms just as most things. Suppose you find a squirrel, put on front of him a nutritious nut and a 20 carat diamond, I rest assured knowing that he would not fail to choose the highly nutritious nut instead of a meaningless diamond.

So the problem in this scenario is not in applying a correct meaning of truth or falsity to the paradox, but it is the concept itself, it is the concept of assigning meaning that is the error. This is obvious as there is no use in justifying what is an unjustifiable quality. If meaning were not as equivocally unjustifiable there would be no paradox in the first place.

So as you see, such unjustifiable qualities or meanings express no real correlation with any given state of actuality and render information in conjunction only to the single body creating them.

The dictionary and eventually all present forms of language will fail to assign a correct meaning to meaning as you cannot transmute into the physical what is in reality a mental illusion.

The sentence is not true, and the sentence is not false. The sentence is neither true nor false. If we labeled all true sentences as true and all false sentences as false, not all sentences will have labels--even if we're only talking about declarative sentences.

All sentences are true or not true, and all propositions are true or not true. All propositions are true or false, but not all sentences are true or false.

Let's suppose there are 100 declarative sentences. Let's say that exactly 30 of them are true and exactly 40 of them are false. If so, then how many are not true, and how many are not false?

Not true 70
Not false 60

This sentence has five words.

This sentence was typed on a keyboard.

THIS SENTENCE USES ALL CAPS.

We use self-reference all the time without difficulty. We all know what the above sentences mean. Nobody has a problem with these examples so it seems ad hoc to suddenly claim that "this sentence" doesn't refer to anything when difficulty does arise.

So, according to you, if I wish for the sentence, "chickens lay eggs" to mean, "love is a many- splendored thing", that is what "chicken lay eggs" will mean? Hmm. Sounds dubious. Are you then saying that presto, changeo, from then on, everyone who says "chickens lay eggs" will mean, "love is a many-splendored thing" or just most people will mean that?

Anyway, you will be happy to know that your theory of meaning is exactly Humpty-Dumpty's theory of meaning expressed in the book by Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland". Humpty-Dumpty tells Alice that when he uses a term, there term means what he wants it to mean, "neither more nor less". When Alice protests that in that case, the term will really be working hard because it will mean so many different things if everybody has the same theory as Humpty-Dumpty, and the word means whatever anyone wants it to mean, Humpty-Dumpty assures Alice that he pays the word extra for its trouble. I hope you will too.

deleted pointless post

edited out.

................

Read this again. I realized that you wouldn't understand how your argument fails so I edited it heavily.

So you're saying that the sentence is both not true and not false. That of course doesn't solve the stronger version of:

1. This sentence is not true.

If this sentence is both not true and not false then the sentence is true because it says that it's not true but how can it be true that it's not true?

There's still a paradox, you haven't solved anything.

edited out

.....

The paradox is in the fact that "This sentence is not true" is a true sentence. That's the paradox. We can ignore the issue of falsity and focus on true or not true.

It does? But that is exactly what is at issue. So you are simply begging the question.