mag comments on Unsolved Problems in Philosophy Part 1: The Liar's Paradox - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Kevin 30 November 2010 08:56AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (130)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mag 02 December 2010 06:49:06PM *  1 point [-]

I'm highly sympathetic to the intuition that the liar sentence is devoid of meaning in some important respect, but I don't think we can just declare the liar sentence meaningless and then call it a day. Because in another respect, it definitely seems meaningful. I understand what a sentence is, and I feel like I understand what it is for a sentence to be true or false. If someone wrote on a blackboard "The thing written on the blackboard of room 428 is false," I feel like I would understand what this is saying before I went to check out room 428. Hence I must understand the sentence if it turns out that we're in room 428 already.

Also consider the Strengthened Liar: "This sentence is not true." According to your solution, that sentence should also be dismissed as meaningless, right? But surely meaningless sentences a fortiori aren't true. But that's precisely what the sentence asserts, hence it is true.

Comment author: topynate 02 December 2010 06:57:43PM 1 point [-]

If it's meaningless, it doesn't assert anything.

Comment author: cousin_it 02 December 2010 07:30:38PM *  0 points [-]

A sharper formulation of the paradox just came to my mind. Consider the statements X = "X is not true" and Y = "X isn't true". (The difference in spelling is intentional.) If X is meaningless, then X isn't true, therefore Y is true. But it's a very weird state of affairs if replacing "isn't" by "is not" can make a true sentence meaningless!

Comment author: Perplexed 02 December 2010 08:16:39PM 0 points [-]

it's a very weird state of affairs if replacing "isn't" by "is not" can make a true sentence meaningless!

The apostrophe in this sentence isn't needed for comprehension.

Comment deleted 02 December 2010 07:26:52PM *  [-]
Comment author: topynate 02 December 2010 07:44:26PM 0 points [-]

When you state ~~A(S) iff ~S, you are formally substituting S for ~A(S), but the meaning of "~~A(S) iff ~S" is "the set of truth-conditions for ~~A(S) is the same as the set of truth-conditions for ~S". But this assumes that there exists a set of truth-conditions for ~S, which assumes that there exists a set of truth-conditions for S, i.e. that S is meaningful, by your definition.

Comment author: mag 02 December 2010 06:49:36PM 0 points [-]

O.K., I don't know how to italicize here.

Comment author: Perplexed 02 December 2010 06:54:02PM 0 points [-]

Next time you comment, try the Help link (lower right).

Comment author: mag 02 December 2010 06:56:30PM 0 points [-]

Ah, thanks.