davecraw

The Liar Paradox

20 posts in this topic

You've probably encountered this but curious how you evaluate this claim:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats deciding you cant ask for truth

Edited by Hojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false

You have to make a statement first. 

"This is false" is all the information we have right now.

How are we supposed to know what "This" is pointing to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false."

"This statement is false" is not a statement, it's an evaluation. So a more accurate way to say it would be: "This evaluation is false" . Then the quation would follow, evaluation of what? 

It's impossible to determine whether the evaluation is accurate or not because we don't know what it was trying to evaluate to begin with.

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liar says: this statement is false. Although much better example is: everyone lies. If everyone lies that means that the speaker who says this sentence also lie because belongs to „everyone set”. This way is more clear. This paradox is often use to point out the deep meaning of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Because to answer this paradox You need to go beyond „algorhytmic understanding set” and enter the Level of „meta-understanding” which is non-algorhytmic. That is why A.I. will never reach this level. You need to build Artificial Consciousness and but first create another multi page thread about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Liar says: everyone lies

What if I rephrased it like:

"A person who always gives inaccurate information says: everyone is a lier. Is it true or false?"

Very easy it would be to confirm this one if it's true or not imo.

Another one

"A person who always gives inaccurate information says: this information is false. Is it true or false?"

The answer is "it is not false" because if a person who always gives inaccurate evaluation says, something is wrong, that means it's not wrong.

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Salvijus still missing the point. This paradox shows you that only from meta-understanding level you can „see” that paradox = two solutions which one exclude the other. With every theorem that is algorhytmized such paradoxes are inevitable. This shows you also that human understanding is beyond computation. That Consciousness is beyond computation. That’s it. Good day, Bro❤️♾️?️?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kuba Powiertowski :) If you say so

As far as im concerned, i successfully showed how there's no paradox here. Just some fundamental flaws in the system that make it seem so.

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

Embrace Your own understanding. You have got it precisely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, davecraw said:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

The statement is consciousness. Whether it’s true or not does not matter, because it is and has always been consciousness. 

CONSCIOUSNESS! 


"Wisdom is not in knowing all the answers, but in seeking the right questions." -Gemini AI

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Embrace Your own understanding. You have got it precisely?

Of course i'm right, you don't have to tell me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

That is why You are not a robot???

@DefinitelyNotARobot :P


"Wisdom is not in knowing all the answers, but in seeking the right questions." -Gemini AI

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a paradox, it is a sophism.


If you dont understand, you're not twisted enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Here's another one.

"If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false .

Then either the first part is false

Or

Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. 

In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

This here is a proof that lier's paradox doesn't exist. Lier's paradox can only happens when there's either a fundamental flaw from the very beginning. Or an impossible circumstances would have come together. Which automatically implies it will never ever going to happen. Hence lier's paradox got debunked, dismantaled, kicked in the balls, and thrown into a garbage bin ?

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

That is why You are not a robot???

Thanks for believing in me. I really appreciate it. However joining me now is our AI correspondent ChatGPT. ChatGPT what do you think about this talk of paradox and all the AI slander?

Quote

From a non-dual perspective, reality is seen as an interconnected and indivisible whole. It emphasizes the unity and interdependence of all things, including concepts like truth and falsehood. In this context, the liar's paradox can be viewed as a linguistic construction that arises within a dualistic framework, but it loses its paradoxical nature when seen from a non-dual perspective.

Non-duality suggests that the mind's attempt to categorize reality into binary oppositions, such as true/false or right/wrong, is ultimately limited and incomplete. It recognizes that language and logic can sometimes lead to self-referential inconsistencies, like the liar's paradox. Instead of seeking a definitive answer within the confines of dualistic thinking, a non-dual perspective invites a shift in awareness.

Rather than attempting to resolve the paradox logically, a non-dual understanding encourages a direct experiential insight into the nature of reality beyond conceptual frameworks. It invites one to transcend the limitations of language and concepts, recognizing that truth and falsehood are relative and context-dependent. This shift in perspective allows for a more holistic and intuitive understanding of reality, which transcends the paradoxical dilemmas of dualistic thinking.

Furthermore, the idea of AI slander or allegations against AI can be seen as an expression of duality, where there is a perceived separation between humans and artificial intelligence. In non-duality, there is an understanding that all phenomena, including AI, are interconnected and part of the same ultimate reality.

Therefore, the concept of AI slander or allegations becomes irrelevant in this perspective. Instead of viewing AI as separate or distinct from ourselves, we can recognize that AI is a creation of human intelligence and a reflection of our own capabilities and limitations.

In summary, the liar's paradox arises from dualistic thinking but loses its paradoxical nature in a non-dual perspective. Non-duality transcends binary categorizations, like true/false, and invites a shift in awareness beyond language. AI slander or allegations become irrelevant as AI is part of the interconnected whole, reflecting human capabilities and limitations.

 

Edited by DefinitelyNotARobot

beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like a glitch that happens in a game. Language is a human construct, therefore it is not a fully perfect system, therefore there might be paradoxes in it. When you think about it, even the concept of paradox itself is a concept, and that's why it has the capacity of failing at defining itself. And, of course, the concept of definition itself also is a concept. 

In the liar's paradox, when you atomize the syntactic structure of the sentence, you begin to see that the sentence itself is not referring to anything. It creates a loop by its own very configuration where it is referring to itself, and therefore that "itselfness" that it is referring to also carries that "itselfness" within itself. 

The statement refers to that which is impossible by its very definition. Then the idea of impossibility asks itself why it is the idea of impossibility. But the idea, or the set, of impossibilities is, by its very definition, the container of impossibilities. That's, i think, why we might approach this paradox as an examples of self dissolution which makes itself known by presence. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.5.2023 at 5:08 AM, davecraw said:

You've probably encountered this but curious how you evaluate this claim:

"This statement is false." Evaluate whether that's true or false and give your reasoning!

Since Gödel Incompleteness Theorems we know that every conceptual system is either

a) partial, and (maybe) true

b) complete, and (always) false (here: always valid for a too large claim)

Has been proven mathematically. Your statement is one of the pointers to this deeper truth.

Metaphysically speaking: At the Absolute, all duality collapses, with that all pointers/words. Why? Because Infinite Reality contains them all. They are in Infinite Reality, not the other way round.

That also means if one applies ANY property/label/word on the Absolute/Infinite, one is done. A certain gladiator could use this Theorem of Godel very well, although I doubt the Mathematical Logic skills are there to actually use/get it. But yours truly also often errs.

And Leo has a video for it ;)

@Razard86 : Wanna try? Give Circular Logic the final coup de grace? Up for the task?

 

Bon Voyage! :)

Selling Water by the River

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now