This sentence is false.

@Gnostic,

This sentence, the sentence you are currently reading, is not true.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165452 wrote:

This sentence, the sentence you are currently reading, is not true.

That's right. Now tell me, why is that? Also tell me if you think the sentence is false.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;165405 wrote:

How about, this joke is not funny.

Unless previously, there was a joke, to which "this joke" refers, that sentence is otiose. As Russell pointed out, the demonstratives, "this" and "that" (which he called "logically proper names") either refer, or are meaningless.

@fast,

fast;165456 wrote:

That's right. Now tell me, why is that? Also tell me if you think the sentence is false.

I'm just offering another example of self-reference. Also, we often write to address the reader when the reader is reading it rather then when the writer is writing it. For example, "By the time you read this..." is a common opener.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165460 wrote:

I'm just offering another example of self-reference. Also, we often write to address the reader when the reader is reading it rather then when the writer is writing it. For example, "By the time you read this..." is a common opener.

Indeed! What "this letter" refers to is the rest of the letter.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165462 wrote:

Indeed! What "this letter" refers to is the rest of the letter.

I don't think so. Someone might write, "I will be mailing this letter 3rd class but I hope it reaches you." I doubt they mean just part of the letter.

@Gnostic,

1. I love pizza! Is this sentence bold?
2. I love pizza! Is this sentence bold?
3. Is this sentence bold? I love pizza!
4. Is this sentence bold? I love pizza!

Madness!

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;165446 wrote:

Actually, if you were me, you would use those sentences. Because I use those sentences.

Why don't you use those sentences, though? What is wrong with saying that X term cannot have the property Y? We of course mean that, in how we commonly use the term, we do not apply that property to said term. It would be similar to someone asserting that a premise was valid. We may tell that person that we don't call premises valid or invalid. We call arguments valid or invalid (among other things), and we call premises true or false. Thereby we may say "Premises cannot be valid or invalid", and it should be understood what was meant.

Because it is terribly unclear what is meant. Are you talking about what can meaningfully be said? That's what I think you are talking about. When you say thing such as "Premises can't be valid or invalid." you mean to say that "Premises cannot be meaningfully said to be valid or invalid.". With that I agree. I do not agree that "It is logically impossible that premises are valid or invalid.".

But when you just write "cannot" without any indication of which kind it is. It could be, and have been interpret as logical impossibility (I have seen it, and the resulting confusion is great), not "meaningfully be said"-possibility. We could call it semantical possibility if you want.

But yes, it is among other things my study of modal logic that makes me want to be really careful here. Another is past experiences with discussions where the people involved were not careful. I have seen how much confusion results when people are not clear about what possibility they are talking about. It is not pretty. It is a mess.

Quote:

Where do you have your proper serious discussions at, if I may ask?

What do you mean? Do you mean where, as in location (or 'location' on the internet), I have such discussions? Most people on boards like these are not qualified to discuss things at that level. Some are, of course. But the general level of things here and elsewhere online pull them down. Were I to discuss it properly, I would write an essay about it and discuss drafts of that essay with various informed people before releasing it. Unfortunately, I don't know many informed people that are particularly interested in discussing semantic paradoxes like the liar.

Or do you mean if I have already had it and where I uploaded it to so you can read it? I have not done so yet. Which is one of the reasons I'm not committed to any view on this matter.

@fast,

fast;165464 wrote:

1. I love pizza! Is this sentence bold?
2. I love pizza! Is this sentence bold?
3. Is this sentence bold? I love pizza!
4. Is this sentence bold? I love pizza!

Madness!

Stop. You're making me hungry.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165460 wrote:

I'm just offering another example of self-reference. Also, we often write to address the reader when the reader is reading it rather then when the writer is writing it. For example, "By the time you read this..." is a common opener.

And people don't seem to have trouble with such sentences. Or find them meaningless and what not.

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 12:23 AM ----------

Night Ripper;165466 wrote:

Stop. You're making me hungry.

Not a problem. I'll be eating home-made pizza tomorrow anyway. :cool:

@fast,

fast;165289 wrote:

The sentence is not true, and the sentence is not false. The sentence is neither true nor false.

If you say the sentence is true then it would be true that the sentence is false. A contradiction

If you say the sentence is false then it would be false that the sentence is false. Another contradiction

How do you solve the problem by saying it is neither true nor false? That too sounds like a contradiction too. Can something neither be true nor false?

Truth is saying of what is, that it is and saying what is not, that it is not.

But how can truth be saying of what is or is not, that it is neither?

fast;165289 wrote:

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

O, goodie, Layne's law.

I totally disagree, I see no difference between something that is not true and something that is false.

Could you please tell me the quintessential difference between something that is not true and something that is false?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;165463 wrote:

I don't think so. Someone might write, "I will be mailing this letter 3rd class but I hope it reaches you." I doubt they mean just part of the letter.

But sure it does. The part of the letter you have not yet read, as well as the part you have just read. I am mailing them together.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 07:22 PM ----------

Gnostic;165469 wrote:

If you say the sentence is true then it would be true that the sentence is false. A contradiction

If you say the sentence is false then it would be false that the sentence is false. Another contradiction

How do you solve the problem by saying it is neither true nor false? That too sounds like a contradiction too. Can something neither be true nor false?

Truth is saying of what is, that it is and saying what is not, that it is not.

But how can truth be saying of what is or is not, that it is neither?

O, goodie, Layne's law.

I totally disagree, I see no difference between something that is not true and something that is false.

Could you please tell me the quintessential difference between something that is not true and something that is false?

Won't just the essential difference do the trick? I misplaced the other four essences. Sorry.

It is not true that the number 7 is lavender, but do you think that it is false that it is lavender?

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 07:41 PM ----------

Night Ripper;165300 wrote:

The paradox is in the fact that "This sentence is not true" is a true sentence. .

But is it a true proposition? Is it a proposition at all? That is just what is at issue.

@kennethamy,

People are still debating this? maybe I should mention again, THERE IS NO USE IN JUSTIFYING WHAT IS AN UNJUSTIFIABLE QUALITY. You will just keep on disputing, it is a PARADOX.

kennethamy;165294 wrote:

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.

This shows you ken that I do not study philosophy. I was not at all surprised that the theory I put forward has passed through the minds of many philosophers, and has been presented before me, after all that is the exact reason why I do not read philosophy, upon reading on philosophy I would understand concepts thereby eliminating the potential of the concept being created fully by me. This has happened many times that I have attempted to read philosophy, I would stumble upon concepts that imply EXACTLY something I had thought of a few days earlier, had I kept on reading or had I read the book earlier and the concept would not have been created by me but would have been read by me, this is what ultimately stopped me from reading any further.

@Soul Brother,

Soul Brother;165601 wrote:

People are still debating this? maybe I should mention again, THERE IS NO USE IN JUSTIFYING WHAT IS AN UNJUSTIFIABLE QUALITY. You will just keep on disputing, it is a PARADOX.

This shows you ken that I do not study philosophy. I was not at all surprised that the theory I put forward has passed through the minds of many philosophers, and has been presented before me, after all that is the exact reason why I do not read philosophy, upon reading on philosophy I would understand concepts thereby eliminating the potential of the concept being created fully by me. This has happened many times that I have attempted to read philosophy, I would stumble upon concepts that imply EXACTLY something I had thought of a few days earlier, had I kept on reading or had I read the book earlier and the concept would not have been created by me but would have been read by me, this is what ultimately stopped me from reading any further.

But doesn't it make you hesitate that your theory is the one which is advanced by a large EGG?

@Soul Brother,

Soul Brother;165601 wrote:

People are still debating this? maybe I should mention again, THERE IS NO USE IN JUSTIFYING WHAT IS AN UNJUSTIFIABLE QUALITY. You will just keep on disputing, it is a PARADOX.

This shows you ken that I do not study philosophy. I was not at all surprised that the theory I put forward has passed through the minds of many philosophers, and has been presented before me, after all that is the exact reason why I do not read philosophy, upon reading on philosophy I would understand concepts thereby eliminating the potential of the concept being created fully by me. This has happened many times that I have attempted to read philosophy, I would stumble upon concepts that imply EXACTLY something I had thought of a few days earlier, had I kept on reading or had I read the book earlier and the concept would not have been created by me but would have been read by me, this is what ultimately stopped me from reading any further.

Why not learn all of the concepts you can so you can reach out to the edge and think of something that hasn't yet been thought? This is what you do in science and mathematics (and everything else in cluding philosophy). You learn what has been gathered before you and get to work on expanding it (think of Newton's on the shoulders of giants spiel). You have to get up to speed before you can really add to the discussion. Besides, if it's something you can just think up after mulling it over a bit (without heavy contemplation and working out many details); is it really such a victory to have figured it out rather than reading it? Sure you get the satisfaction, maybe, but if you can get to the edge of the discussion and answer the difficult questions and clarify something difficult; that rush is the reward for studying the subject. No more no less.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;165635 wrote:

Why not learn all of the concepts you can so you can reach out to the edge and think of something that hasn't yet been thought? This is what you do in science and mathematics (and everything else in cluding philosophy). You learn what has been gathered before you and get to work on expanding it (think of Newton's on the shoulders of giants spiel). You have to get up to speed before you can really add to the discussion. Besides, if it's something you can just think up after mulling it over a bit (without heavy contemplation and working out many details); is it really such a victory to have figured it out rather than reading it? Sure you get the satisfaction, maybe, but if you can get to the edge of the discussion and answer the difficult questions and clarify something difficult; that rush is the reward for studying the subject. No more no less.

To reach the flag and carry it along further is no shortage of achievement and largely contributes to the upheave of knowledge towards a grand theory, but it is not my goal. As Einstein did with Newton, they certainly made an utmost impact by adding a phew more chapters to the book, and certainly these contributions where of paramount benefit not only to their fields but society as a whole. I do not hope to become a prominent historical
philosopher, and I do not push myself to be the one to carry the flag another mile. For now, I guess I am happy laying down my own road to journey across and explore how far I can go and what I can do, I want to explore with my own two feet before I jump on a horse. As for getting up to speed to add to the discussion, I think I'm actually rolling pretty fast already, after all I have a decent amount of time still ahead of me.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165481 wrote:

The part of the letter you have not yet read, as well as the part you have just read. I am mailing them together.

Exactly. When I write in a letter "By the time I mail this letter..." the phrase "this letter" refers to the whole letter not just part of it. I'm glad you finally agree. This opens another formulation of the paradox if I write a single sentence in a letter, "This letter contains only sentences that are not true."

@Gnostic,

Some words (or perhaps rather their referents) are stronger than others. One example is the relationship between knowledge and belief. Knowledge implies belief, but the inverse is not true; hence, belief does not imply knowledge. In other words, if you know that some proposition is true then you believe that some proposition is true, but your believing that some proposition is true doesn't imply that you know some proposition is true. The point I'm making has to do with strength: that knowledge is stronger than belief.

What about "not true" and "false"? Some people confuse the two, but there is a relationship between the two just like there is a relationship between "knowledge" and "belief." It just so happens that "false" implies "not true" (just like most of us would agree), but what many people still miss is that "not true" is stronger than "false" just like "knowledge" is stronger than "belief". The implications of this are that all sentences that are false are not true, but not all sentences that are not true are false.

The categories "true" and "false" are not collectively exhaustive. The categories "true" and "not true" are collectively exhaustive.

It's true that all sentences are "true" or "not true", and it's true that all propositions are "true" or "not true," and though it's true that all propositions are true or false, it's not the case that all sentences are true or false.

For a sentence to be false, a sentence needs to express a false proposition.
For a sentence to be true, a sentence needs to express a true proposition.
If a sentence fails to express a proposition, then it's not the case that the sentence expressed a true proposition, and it's not the case that the sentence expressed a false proposition.

Why would I call a sentence true or false if the sentence expresses neither a true nor false proposition?

@fast,

fast;165732 wrote:

Why would I call a sentence true or false if the sentence expresses neither a true nor false proposition?

1. This sentence has five words.
2. This sentence is not true.

The problem is, you need an argument for why sentences like (1) do express a proposition but sentences like (2) don't. It won't do to just claim that neither of them express a proposition.

I mentioned earlier that I think it has to do with how we determine a sentence's truth-value and the viciously circular nature in which (2)'s truth-value is determined by its own truth-value. It seems if we disallow that sentences can do that then we can account for the error in (2) while still keeping (1) in good standing.

@Gnostic,

Other than category errors, what else can prevent a sentence from expressing a proposition?

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 11:51 AM ----------

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;165740]1. This sentence has five words.[/QUOTE]First, I'll just assume for the sake of argument that the quoted sentence above is self-referential.

The sentence is true if 1) the sentence expresses a proposition and 2) the proposition expressed is true.

A sentence is something that can have five words, so it's not a category error, so it expresses a proposition. If the proposition expressed by the sentence is true, the sentence is true.

[QUOTE]2. This sentence is not true.[/QUOTE]
Like before, I'll just assume for the sake of argument that the quoted sentence directly above is self-referential.

First, I'm going to decide if the sentence expresses a proposition. If it doesn't, then my conclusion is that the sentence is not true (and not false). If it does, then I'm going to decide if the proposition expressed by the sentence is true or false. If I decide both 1) that the sentence expresses a proposition and 2) that the proposition is true, then I'm going to conclude that the sentence is true. If I decide both 1) that the sentence expresses a proposition and 2) that the proposition is false, then I'm going to conclude that the sentence is false.

To decide whether or not the sentence expresses a proposition, I'm going to look for a category error. I don't see one. A sentence is something that can rightly be labeled as not true, so I think the sentence expresses a proposition. So now I'm going to determine whether or not the proposition expressed by the sentence is true or false.

Is the sentence, "this sentence is not true" true or false? Well, I have no way of telling. I can't trust the sentence to tell me. That would be begging the question. Interestingly, if the sentence "this sentence is not true" is true, then the sentence is true-despite what it says.

Here's another possibility. If I made a mistake and the sentence doesn't in fact express a proposition (despite that no category error was made), then the fact no proposition was expressed implies (by default) that the sentence is not true.

Philosophy Forum

This sentence is false.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know