Liar paradox - If this sentence were true, then what it says would be the truth, implying that it is false which is a contradiction, so if it were false then it is false that this sentence is false, hence it is true which is also a contradiction.

submitted by JasonCarswell from en.wikipedia.org

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JoJo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I like Arthur Prior's explanation. He basically says that every statement implicitly claims it is true, so "crows are black" means "it is true that crows are black", or "this statement is true: crows are black". Thus, the sentence "This statement is false" can be expanded into "This statement is true: This statement is false," which is easily seen as a contradiction, not a paradox.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

You are 100 meters tall.

Not every statement implicitly claims to be true.

[–]JoJo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So what is the difference, without context, between "you are 100 meters tall" and "it is true that you are 100 meters tall"?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It is clearly not true. And that untrue meaning can be conveyed, whether in blatant lies, exaggeration, sarcasm, or other devices utilizing untrueness. That's not even counting questions and ambivalence.

[–]JoJo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I feel that you don't really know what you are talking about, but just in case,

Would you then say that the equivalent to "You are 100 meters tall" is "It is false that you are 100 meters tall"?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Not really.

Try this then. Someone wakes up with a terrible hangover from a rough night. Another person make a sarcastic comment...

  • "Hey beauty queen."

  • "You look a million bucks."

  • "Saving the world one shot at a time."

All of these examples are clearly not meant to be true.

Sarcasm, too good to be true.

[–]JoJo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Again I say, you are talking about sentences with context, whereas "This sentence is false" lacks any.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even without context no one can be 100 meters tall.

Even without context "You look a million bucks" could be a compliment or not.

Context was not mentioned in post. Sentences can be false and/or wrong.

[–]JoJo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Even without context no one can be 100 meters tall.

Completely irrelevant, because even statements which might not be true still assume their own truthfulness. You are saying that the sentence would instead mean "It is false that you are 100 meters tall," so the appropriate response to that question would be affirmative, which is extremely illogical.

Context was not mentioned in post. Sentences can be false and/or wrong.

Because they assume their own truthfulness. Tell me, again, how "It is true that you are you are 100 meters tall" is different from "you are 100 meters tall"? Are you saying that instead it should be "It is NOT true that you are 100 meters tall?"

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Then I guess this statement is true:

You know everything.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The facts presented in the sentence are untrue but the over arching communication itself remains apt. I understand your sarcasm so I understand the truth of your underlying communication.

Words are “logos.” They are not their dictionary definition but instead a stand in for the communication you are attempting to make. There is no “without context.” If I say “Holla Reina de Belleza” and you don’t understand me, does that in and of itself make my statement false? No, but it also doesn’t make my statement understood.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The initial conversation is about sentences - not their communication. And even expanded to include communication, there is always room for confusion in many communications.

For example, SaidIt.net has been touted as being for "free speech" by myself and others. This was before I was exposed to alt-right, asstrolls, and other appropriation meanings of "free speech". Now I would call it "uncensored civilized discourse". My new phrase's meaning remains the same to me, but negates the others that I didn't want included. Meanings can evolve.

For another example, take a movie with a character that flips from protagonist to antagonist. Everything they say is the same the second time you view the movie - but now you see it in a different light. Suddenly words are inverted, despite being the same, with the same person, in the same situation - just with broader perspective and context.

Your example is good, yet not. To claim that all sentences are true, regardless - is only true on an existential level. Yes they exist. Your foreign language is as good as "asdl;kgjalkdfjlakjfd" or a line of stones to me. Yes it is true they exist - but no more. And importantly, the interpreted ideas communicated do NOT exist.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Have you read much Wittgenstein?

The importance of words is not meaning but communication.

I heard what you said and I'm not certain you understood what you said.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know what I said.

Again - the initial post and this conversation is about sentences - not their communication, interpretations, and miscommunications.

I've not been debating you on anything else, though you're avidly trying to twist it into another discussion to validate another stance. If you want that discussion, then that's a whole other discussion, but you haven't swayed me on this.

Wittgenstein is moot.

Have you tried 'correcting' the Wikipedia article?

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It’s not clearly untrue because I’ve never seen JoJo and have no idea what JoJo looks like.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I can guarantee that JoJo is not 100 metres tall.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wittgenstein would point out that you intended to lie. /u/JoJo’s explanation can be expand to include the implied understanding that you are attempting to truthfully observe the world. If you are intending to lie, then your statement loses relevance in the context of the conversation.

tl;dr: just read Wittgenstein. He explains all this.