Got the Memo Yet? You Can Indeed Prove a Negative!

[Polymath257]

Hdjdie ok jushdjdj jdjdjeb tiriugd bzhsueg dheudhjd uwhsjdhyks.

I found that deeply moving.

 

[Polymath257]

The liar's paradox is both true and not true at the same time, hence why it is the paradox.

I'm more inclined to say it is *neither* true nor not-true. It doesn't have a truth value.

There are a great many sentences that have no truth value.

 

[Curious George]

I found that deeply moving.

I am lucky you chose to define the terms generously. I am glad communication was in no way impacted.

(I hope you got that it was a case in point for your post).

 

[Polymath257]

I am lucky you chose to define the terms generously. I am glad communication was in no way impacted.

(I hope you got that it was a case in point for your post).

Communication was achieved.

 

[Willamena]

So far as I know, the paradox's significance is to demonstrate the "incompleteness" of formal systems of logic. But it is not to be understood as referencing an actual or external state of affairs. Hence, it does not negate the principle of non-contradiction. At least, it does not negate it's application to the real world, so to speak.

Of course, I'm probably wrong about that since I'm wrong about everything.

I don't know anything about it demonstrating incompleteness of systems of logic. I just know that it works very well to demonstrate truth.

The second and third versions of the principle do not deal with external states of affairs. (Now I wish we still had that shoulder-shrugging emoticon.)

 

[Willamena]

I'm more inclined to say it is *neither* true nor not-true. It doesn't have a truth value.

There are a great many sentences that have no truth value.

To be neither true nor false, it would have refrain from making an assertion.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. I have almost the same emotional reaction to the idea of NOT defining some things so we can understand them better. Precision of language is a good thing. Vagueness isn't helpful for attaining knowledge.

I disagree. There are different kinds of "knowledge". And ultimately, it's all experiential (subjective), and envisioned (imaginary).

When people define words to be anything they want (like 'God'), that only leads to confusion and a reduction in communication. It may be personally meaningful, but it is personally meaningful that tomatoes taste horrible. That doesn't mean anyone else will agree.

Words mean nothing. They are simply place-holders for categories of idea. And some ideas cannot be defined from a distance. They have to be experienced, first hand. Ultimately, all ideas are this way, even when they are formed from multiple and similar experiences of a single physical object. Which is clearly not the case with the "God" ideal. It can ONLY be "known" through subjective personal experience, which cannot easily be transferred or shared with others.

And I strongly disagree that defining things removes all meaning from them!

You seem to be falling into the abyss of irrational extremism, here. The options are not 'all or none'. It's a matter of degree. The more we attempt to define a mystery, the less mystery there is left to be defined, until nothing is left but the presumption of absolute resolution. Which, I think we both know is a delusional conceit for we non-omniscient humans. And a very dangerous one, at that.

In fact, for me it is exactly the opposite! Ideas gain meaning by being well defined. They lose meaning by being vague and opinion-centered. At least, that's how it works for me.

More precisely, ideas become more "fleshed out" and experience-specific the more we try to define the experience for others. They actually do not get "resolved" so much as they get bigger, and more encompassing. The more we look at and into an idea, the the more we see how it inter-relates to all other ideas. So in fact, the 'mystery' does not get solved, it gets bigger and more universal.

Yes, emotionally meaningful. That isn't the same as being meaningful in the sense of having a truth value. And, in questions of knowledge, as opposed to opinions, it is truth value that is one of the criteria.

"Truth" is an illusion. It's a conceptual red herring. We humans do not have the capacity for it, nor do we even seek it. What we seek is functional knowledge. More specifically, functional knowledge that gives us an advantage in our world. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that you, or any of us is pursuing "Truth". Or that we could know it if we stumbled on it. Because we can't, and we don't.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree. There are different kinds of "knowledge". And ultimately, it's all experiential (subjective), and envisioned (imaginary).

Nope. That's the difference between knowledge and opinion Knowledge is public (objective) and justified (not imaginary).

Words mean nothing.

Only when we refuse to define them.

They are simply place-holders for categories of idea. And some ideas cannot be defined from a distance. They have to be experienced, first hand. Ultimately, all ideas are this way, even when they are formed from multiple and similar experiences of a single physical object. Which is clearly not the case with the "God" ideal. It can ONLY be "known" through subjective personal experience, which cannot easily be transferred or shared with others.

Which means it is at best an opinion and at worst a delusion.

You seem to be falling into the abyss of irrational extremism, here. The options are not 'all or none'. It's a matter of degree. The more we attempt to define a mystery, the less mystery there is left to be defined, until nothing is left but the presumption of absolute resolution. Which, I think we both know is a delusional conceit for we non-omniscient humans. And a very dangerous one, at that.

And because we are not and will never be omniscient, there is no danger that there will never be mystery. But that said, themain value of a mystery is that it concentrates the mind to solve it.

More precisely, ideas become more "fleshed out" and experience-specific the more we try to define the experience for others. They actually do not get "resolved" so much as they get bigger, and more encompassing. The more we look at and into an idea, the the more we see how it inter-relates to all other ideas. So in fact, the 'mystery' does not get solved, it gets bigger and more universal.

No, the idea is made precise and we learn how it relates to others. The idea itself doesn't grow, but our understanding of how it relates to others does.

"Truth" is an illusion. It's a conceptual red herring. We humans do not have the capacity for it, nor do we even seek it.

Some of us do.

What we seek is functional knowledge. More specifically, functional knowledge that gives us an advantage in our world. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that you, or any of us is pursuing "Truth". Or that we could know it if we stumbled on it. Because we can't, and we don't.

Functionality is but one sign of truth. But advantage isn't my goal. Just knowledge.

 

[`mud]

It's a little bit like a Ping-Pong match, isn't it ?

 

[`mud]

I really like the filling of gnosis' for both of you.
Trading levels in one's staircase of knowledge !
Go with me bro !