Is the Liar's Paradox really a paradox?

Well played. Well played...

If I contradict math, will you believe me then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you really want to get into this? I'm not going to tip-toe around in case you get offended again. I'll speak my mind. You do, after all, seem to be suggesting that reason and logic are ultimately defeated by semantic parlour tricks, and I believe that such a contention is absurd.

But if you're up for it, go right ahead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

______________________________________________

The Thomas Theorem says that "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_theorem

What the hell is with the Thomas Theorem? Guess where the "Self-fulfilling Prophecy" term branched from? Exactly. The Thomas Theorem. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_theorem

So what am I trying to gain from proving the Liar's Paradox? Fit it anything in the Liar's Paradox and you will see it's "reality" come to life. You will find a contradiction to your "reality" though.

Watch.

Say someone thinks they want to eat a cookie. Let us say that cookie = (-) and that health = (-). Now let us say this person has an end result of eating the cookie. What is the equation? Cookie (-) x Health (-) = Eaten (+). Okay so what? What if... The cookie was unhealthy to eat? You notice I had health in the equation right? Typically you need to eat in order to survive. Watch the Liar's Paradox come into play. If "(-) x (-) = (+) is false" is false, then it is true, which would in turn mean that it is actually false, but this would mean that it is true, and so on ad infinitum.

How can you prove (-) x (-) = + false? Easy. Contradict it.

(-) x (-) = (+)

but

(+) x (+) = (+)

thus

(-) x (-) = (+) + (+).

Thus, you could easily say that it isn't a (-) x (-) = (+) but it is actually a (+) + (+) = (+) since they both equal (+).

If you doubt this and reject this, you are thus committing "The impossible certainty fallacy". The impossible certainty fallacy in Critical Thinking is a fallacy in which one assumes "that a research conclusion should be rejected if it is not absolutely certain." Why? Technically you are assuming that (-) x (-) cannot = (+) + (+).

Want to know the irony? It can.

-(2) x -(2) = +(4)

+(2) + +(2) = +(4)

So what have I concluded? (-2) x (-2) = (2) + (2)

So lets say you notice a flaw in my theory. You see the (-) and the (+) are contradicting. You notice they both end up with the same answer but you want to poke at the events before the answer. The events that create the answer are causing you doubt. You wish to do the "Impossible certainty fallacy". The irony is, watch me prove this.
So we know that (-2) x (-2) = (2) + (2)

Did you know? You can switch it around now. Let us screw around with the negatives.

(-2) - (-2) = what? If you took basic math, you do notice you can convert this right? This equation becomes this now...

(-2) + (+2) = 0

So what am I proving? As you see, we just changed the symbols easily without second thought on why. Even if you think about it and realize why we did it, you still notice we changed the essence of the (-)'s. We consider math logic, but technically, I have found a contradiction. Why? It will be shown later.

So you still wish to consider your view as absolute. You wish to consider it as fact right? Well watch this.

We know that (-2) x (-2) = (2) + (2)

Technically though... I am going to contradict math to prove a point. Watch and learn.

If (-2) x (-2) = (2) + (2) then there must be another equation that equals them both correct?

Correct.
(4) - (2) = (2)

Now I am assuming this going on now. "What the bloody hell? You can't switch the answer with the reasoning!"

Oh yes I can. Part four will contradict that. Here comes the flaws in math.

You notice how we easily changed (-) - (-) to a (-) + (+)? Doesn't that technically mean that...

(-) - (-) = (-) + (+)

Yes it does. Think about it. When you first took math, I am sure you were going... "What the hell?" when you first saw this. Want to know why? I will show you.

Technically, you could actually say (-) - (-) should mean the answer should be a negative. Why? It's a
(-) - (-) which should equal a (-)

But it doesn't. Why?

We changed it. Instead of saying (-2) - (-2) = (-4) we decided to deviate and say (-2) - (-2) = 0.

(-2) - (-2) becomes (-2) + (2), thus equaling (0)

Want to know the irony though? Use the equation (-) - (-) = (-) + (+)

If math doesn't have a flaw, this should work perfectly! Correct?
(-1) - (-1) = (-1) + (1)

Math is technically saying what exactly?
-2 = 0
You see the irony? Now watch this...

So we say (-2) = 0 right? Technically math is saying (-2) is (0). If you don't think that is true, think about it... Look back at the equation (-) - (-) = (-) + (+)

So if -2 = 0, what then? Watch the flaws come out.
Let us say we have two negative electrons. Let us also say we have one positive electron. Let us also say we have a device that multiplies the ending electrons by seven. We come up with an equation that says this...

(-2) + (1) x (7) = what?

Step 1: (-2) + (1) = (-1)
Step 2: (-1) x (7) = (-7)
Step 3 (Solution): (-2) + (1) x (7) = (-7)
So what? You haven't proven anything... Or have I?

Think about the equation I gave you. Technically if (-) - (-) = (-) + (+), then it shouldn't matter that I do what I am about to do correct?

(-) + (+) equation
(-2) + (1) x (7) = (-) + (+) x (+)

Why? Simple. The two is negative. The one is positive. The seven is positive.

So assuming math is correct with the equation (-) - (-) = (-) + (+), then what I do next shouldn't matter.

If (-2) + (1) x (7) = (-7) then (-2) - (-1) x (7) = (-7)
Or does it?

We all know that (-2) + (1) x (7) = (-7). Or do we? Watch what I will do next.

So if math is correct, then (-2) - (-1) x (7) = (-7)
Now if you never noticed, we are going to deviate for a bit. Math deviated so why can't we, right? If math is logic, then (-) - (-) should indeed equal (-) + (+). The irony is... It doesn't. Watch closely.

Math said (-) - (-) = (-) + (+)
But math is wrong.
(-) - (-) = (-) - (-)

We cannot say a for example that a Couch equals a Plastic Bag.
Why though?

Here is the equation math is using. Let us say (-) - (-) = Couch. Let us also say that (-) + (+) = Plastic Bag.

See the flaw now?
If you keep looking at it, you will see that math is technically saying (-) - (-) never even existed. But it is! The essence is right in front of our eyes... Don't believe me?

(-) - (-)
^Tell me you can't see that. The essence is there, otherwise you wouldn't be able to process (-) - (-)

So what is math technically saying?

It is saying that a non-existence "(-) - (-)" equals an existence "(-) + (+)"

See how we can use that against math? Watch.
We know that math classifies non-existence usually as a (0) right?
0 = (-) + (+)

You can make that work.
0 = (-1) + (1)
But what if you looked at it this way...
0 = 0 is not equal to 0 = (-1) + (1)

Sure you can convert the second part to 0 but once you convert it, doesn't that mean you are denying the fact that the (-1) + (1) existed? Technically you are doing this, which is wrong.
Think about how you processed this. If math is a fact, we all know that fact is written in stone right?

Then how come I contradicted fact?

Technically speaking, the essence of zero doesn't equal a negative essence and positive essence. If you can say (0) = (-1) then you have a flawed view technically right? If you say Zero = Negative One + One, then technically you can say this...

No color (0) = (-1) Lack of color + (+) Color

And watch this...

(-) Lack of color - (-) Lack of color = (-) Lack of color + (+) Color

See the irony now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does any of this relate to the real world where eating an occasional cookie is fine, but eating too many cookies is bad for you?

 

Alas, this seems insight seems to lead us to the major problem here that is the cause of the disagreement (as far as I can tell...):

No you won't. What you do see, is Logic "come to life".

What's getting confused here is that the two of you are failing to distinguish "reality" from logic....

The two are, at best, tangentially related:

See? It doesn't.

Reminder: no one ever made the claim that the system of logic (or any subsystem thereof..) says absolutely anything whatsoever about "reality"(sic)....

 

I understand where IceLight020 is coming from, and I understand that certain systems of logic while perhaps interesting to explore do not necessarily pertain to the real world. But although IceLight020 himself might claim to understand this, he has nevertheless been entering many discussions around here and attempting to "logically" contradict points made in discussions that are attempting to address the real world.

 

If you think about it, logic comes from perception. If you say logic is fact, then obviously perception is fact. I never said anything about changing anything. All I am saying is the contradictions exist. Whether you realize that or not is up to you.

This is about the Liar's Paradox.

If you cannot form concepts that relate everything together, then you possibly wouldn't know that...

One animal dies, then another dies because that animal dies, and ad infinitum.

Example? Rats become extinct, then snakes MAY become extinct, and ad infinitum. It's quite simple easy to prove the Liar's Paradox as true, false, true and false, and ad infinitum.

Have you heard of having multiple views on things?

I am sure you have.

Now I do understand what you mean however by reality. I am just trying to get you guys to bring the conversation further by causing you to contradict me in order to bring up more logic. Have you ever thought about that?

 

Thus you have contradicted yourself. o.o

 

Er... No offense but without perception, we could not define reality or logic. Both branch from perception.

Now I do understand what you mean however by reality. I am just trying to get you guys to bring the conversation further by attempting to make you contradict me in order to bring up more logic and reality. Have you ever thought about that?

 

I think you have failed to realize the equation.

 

To both: not really.

 

As I have edited.

"Now I do understand what you mean however by reality. I am just trying to get you guys to bring the conversation further by attempting to make you contradict me in order to bring up more logic and reality. Have you ever thought about that? "

If you had no perception on the essence, how would you know what an essence was?

And don't be so close minded. Let's take your perception away and lets see if you can define reality. Let's take away all humans perceptions and see if we can define reality. That isn't the reality, but you see where I am coming from if that was to happen. Since that is a possible conclusion, doesn't that explain why some people have... Ionno...

Different perceptions on reality and logic?

Never and always are usually wrong.

 

Your edit makes no difference.
I'm referring (for the second) to your claim about logic relying on perception: that is incorrect.
Or maybe you don't know about the role of inference in logic?
Or the fact that we can make logical statements about unreal (and thus imperceptible) things?

 

So tell me, how come everyone doesn't have the same "Logic" preference then?

 

What's that got to do with it?
You're going to have to explain what you mean by "logic preference" and why we would all have the same if your contention were correct.

 

I never said I was correct. =]

"In logic, a transformation rule or rule of inference is a syntactic rule or function which takes premises and returns a conclusion (or in multiple-conclusion logic, conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one of the form "If p then q" and another of the form p and returns the conclusion q. The rule is sound with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference

Would not p and q also technically be formed into "b" as well? Thus also into d?

p forms into d then forms into b then q.

or

d forms into p then into q then into b

and etc.

 

And you still haven't explained what you mean.

 

The rule is sound with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true ****(under an interpretation)**** then so is the conclusion.

Perception much?

 

It's 4 AM here. I'll catch up (much) later if you post anything of interest.

 

Go ahead. Your failing to realize the point anyway.