Site will be offline for about 40 mins in a bit due to moving server from kitchen to living room lol. LULZ.COM will still be up, buy merch please

>& Humanitas

Is picture related actually a contradiction? I think it's a trick of language. If someone came to me thinking this was some deep concept or contradiction I would think they were mentally disabled.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a simple paradox

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Answer for yourself. You're copping out right now. I think you realize you're about to sound mentally disabled by trying to defend it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.

            There's nothing special about this

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Self-referential paradoxes are the most useless kind of paradox ever. They have zero application.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think they even exist. It's literally just a trick of language. Someone hears "this sentence" thinking it's referring to an object, and "is" acting as a verb and "false" as a qualifier but there is no actual object. The object is referring to the sentence, which itself is not an object. There is no object so the verbal phrase is just dangling. Any computer would tell you "no ref ID", showing that there's no logic in the statement.

      Just played Portal 2 huh?

      What's Portal 2?

      Something cannot be self-referentially true or false.

      What do you mean? I'm interested I think you may be bringing a big point here.

      If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.

      There's nothing special about this

      >If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false
      It can't be either because there's no actual sentence. "This sentence" is self referring to a non-object. There is no actual object. The sentence has an object, but the sentence is not an object in any literal or semantic sense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Massive cope, linguistic entities can be evaluated for truth or falsity regardless of their material existence.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >linguistic entities can be evaluated for truth or falsity regardless of their material existence
          Linguistic objects are not the same as semantic objects. When you say "this sentence", you're referring to a linguistic object but it is not semantic. There is no "this sentence". If you came up to me and said "is false", I would be like, okay, what is? And you just repeat yourself. That's essentially what you're doing. There is no "this sentence", because it's only only a "sentence" in a linguistic sense, there's no actual object to be true or false, even though there is in the linguistic sense where you're used to seeing actual objects placed at. It's a trick of language.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Of course "is false" makes no sense, you've removed its grammatical subject and are strawmanning the paradox. You haven't said anything here to refute the existence of linguistic objects and are just asserting their nonexistence

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you've removed its grammatical subject and are strawmanning the paradox
            That is not remotely a strawman. The entire point is that grammatical objects are not semantic objects. "This sentence" is not semantic, it's grammatical only, just in the usual place where you would put a normal semantic object. "This sentence" is self referential but without any actual object. "is false" is it's exact semantic equivalent.

            You are mentally disabled.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Linguistic objects have a grammatical structure that defines them and their propositional content.
            You keep asserting linguistic objects don't exist but you have yet to prove this as said.
            The cope is unreal, you're too moronic to distinguish between a grammatical subject and the entity it represents

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Linguistic objects have a grammatical structure that defines them and their propositional content
            But "this sentence is false" has no propositional content. Ok, something is false, what is it? "This sentence" what's that? "This sentence is false" what's false? There is no proposition

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sure I don't believe square circles exist either, but claiming the sentence lacks a proposition is different from saying the sentence doesn't exist as an object that can be referred towards.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >claiming the sentence lacks a proposition

            >is different from saying the sentence doesn't exist as an object that can be referred towards

            It's actually the same. Just because it has a linguistic object doesn't mean it has a semantic object. A semantic object would be able to hold a proposition, the linguistic "object" isn't really an object even in the semantic sense in this case. It doesn't have meaning. So yes, the two are the same because the lack of proposition is due to a lack of semantic object and you are tricked by a linguistic object into a loop where you think it has a semantic object.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This objection is commonly addressed by versions of the paradox where you have two sentences referring to each other.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That would be much better. I've seen the two toads problem, where one claims to be the liar and the other telling the truth, but that's resolvable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't, sentences can contain propositional content but they don't have to. The sentences "I saw a square circle" and "I saw a ajtbebfka" are different sentences I can refer to but they both are equally meaningless in their lack of propositional content. Also semantic objects are not linguistic objects. The word "saw" would be a semantic object referring to the abstraction of "seeing" but it is not a linguistic one. A linguistic object could be a sentence containing semantic objects as structured by grammar.

            It exists as a purely linguistic entity, devoid of actual meaning.
            [...]
            But unless those versions involve an actual proposition they will fail for the same reason, and I highly doubt they do, since lacking propositions is precisely why the liar's paradox "works" in the first place

            >It exists as a purely linguistic entity, devoid of actual meaning.
            This basically sums it up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "I saw a square circle" does contain a proposition, just one that is logically impossible

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also semantic objects are not linguistic objects.
            That's my point.

            >The word "saw" would be a semantic object referring to the abstraction of "seeing" but it is not a linguistic one.
            It's a verbal statement, so it has a linguistic sense. The semantic meaning correlates to a logical verb correlating directly to the grammatical structure, it's just much more strict in the semantic sense.

            > A linguistic object could be a sentence containing semantic objects as structured by grammar.
            Sure, but it could also not. You could string any number of linguistically sensible meanings together and they won't have any semantic, logical, or literal meanings whatsoever.

            >This basically sums it up

            I agree

            [...]
            Exactly

            If "this sentence is false" contains no propositional content due to containing a contradiction then neither does "I saw a square circle"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The sentence implies that square circles exist, which we can disprove with a simple logical argument. Whereas “this sentence is false” can’t be proved or disproved. It’s a completely impractical statement anyway. How on earth would you test it in the real world? When will it ever be useful? It’s nonsense.

            /thread

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Empiricism and utilitarianism have nothing to do with showing that "this sentence is false" is contradictory nonsense, which is trivial to do

            If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.

            There's nothing special about this

            . You are confused clearly.

            >If "this sentence is false" contains no propositional content due to containing a contradiction
            That's backwards. It does not contain a contradiction due to not containing a proposition--- contradiction is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation.
            >neither does "I saw a square circle"
            This does contain a proposition, but does not contain a contradiction. I will demonstrate by actually contradicting it: I did not see a square circle

            It contains no proposition because the sentence is a contradictory affirmation.
            >contradiction is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation.
            "This sentence is false" is a grade A example of this.

            >This does contain a proposition, but does not contain a contradiction. I will demonstrate by actually contradicting it: I did not see a square circle
            There is no contradiction in not seeing a square circle because there's nothing about a square circle that would mean it should be seen. That sentence is equally nonsensical. "I did not see a ajfjsnske" is no different.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If "this sentence is false" contains no propositional content due to containing a contradiction
            That's backwards. It does not contain a contradiction due to not containing a proposition--- contradiction is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation.
            >neither does "I saw a square circle"
            This does contain a proposition, but does not contain a contradiction. I will demonstrate by actually contradicting it: I did not see a square circle

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also semantic objects are not linguistic objects.
            That's my point.

            >The word "saw" would be a semantic object referring to the abstraction of "seeing" but it is not a linguistic one.
            It's a verbal statement, so it has a linguistic sense. The semantic meaning correlates to a logical verb correlating directly to the grammatical structure, it's just much more strict in the semantic sense.

            > A linguistic object could be a sentence containing semantic objects as structured by grammar.
            Sure, but it could also not. You could string any number of linguistically sensible meanings together and they won't have any semantic, logical, or literal meanings whatsoever.

            >This basically sums it up

            I agree

            "I saw a square circle" does contain a proposition, just one that is logically impossible

            Exactly

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It exists as a purely linguistic entity, devoid of actual meaning.

            This objection is commonly addressed by versions of the paradox where you have two sentences referring to each other.

            But unless those versions involve an actual proposition they will fail for the same reason, and I highly doubt they do, since lacking propositions is precisely why the liar's paradox "works" in the first place

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"This sentence" what's that?

            Dude "I am lying" has no propositional content!!

            "I am" what's that?? That simply doesn't check out, look at how smart I am ITT.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem that he's talking about is that the sentence does not contain a proposition, which means it cannot contain a contradiction

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly right. There is no "propositional content". The grammatical object isn't a semantic object. It's a placeholder where a proposition would be put up, but fools and the low IQ keep getting filtered by a simple looping error.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What do you mean? I'm interested I think you may be bringing a big point here.
        "This sentence is false" acts in the same way as "this sentence is an apple". Something can have the properties of an apple, but not the properties of truth or falsity; it needs a reference. Consider the proposition "this apple is false". It is equally meaningless.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something cannot be self-referentially true or false.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think they even exist. It's literally just a trick of language. Someone hears "this sentence" thinking it's referring to an object, and "is" acting as a verb and "false" as a qualifier but there is no actual object. The object is referring to the sentence, which itself is not an object. There is no object so the verbal phrase is just dangling. Any computer would tell you "no ref ID", showing that there's no logic in the statement.

      [...]
      What's Portal 2?

      [...]
      What do you mean? I'm interested I think you may be bringing a big point here.

      [...]
      >If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false
      It can't be either because there's no actual sentence. "This sentence" is self referring to a non-object. There is no actual object. The sentence has an object, but the sentence is not an object in any literal or semantic sense.

      the sentence is right there. it exists. you're just an absolute frickwit in the embryonic state of mental development where you haven't yet realized that logic is a game people play to overcome the extreme limitations of the human brain and natural language is an inherently imprecise, garbage medium for representing it.

      which is all to say, anybody with an IQ above room temperature has long since abandoned """philosophy""" for mathematics.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the sentence is right there. it exists

        We went over this...

        > you're just an absolute frickwit in the embryonic state of mental development where you haven't yet realized that logic is a game people play to overcome the extreme limitations of the human brain and natural language is an inherently imprecise, garbage medium for representing it.

        This is a misleading way of agreeing with someone.

        >which is all to say, anybody with an IQ above room temperature has long since abandoned """philosophy""" for mathematics.

        I could see why you would say this. The youtuber that inspired me to make this thread argued that there was a "mathematical" logic distinct from philosophy and it already sounded like a cope.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just played Portal 2 huh?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sdrawkcab daer nac uoy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      True! I am a semantic AND literal object. 🙂

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this sentence is false
    >this sentence is true
    >this sentence
    >sentence
    All of these statements are meaningless, unfalsifiable nonsense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Linguistic objects have a grammatical structure that defines them and their propositional content
      But "this sentence is false" has no propositional content. Ok, something is false, what is it? "This sentence" what's that? "This sentence is false" what's false? There is no proposition

      Pretty much. I'm glad you posted I was beginning to lose hope in this community

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is truth?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know when you see it.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP is a mouthbreathing waterbrain

    oh yeah dude, you're so much smarter than all the gigabrain 120 verbal IQ ancient Greeks who originally formulated this paradox 2000 years ago, ofc you have it all figured out already

    literally you don't even have to think, because you already know sentences aren't real

    you will never, and I mean NEVER understand formal symbolic logic even in it's most basic binary form
    forget higher order logics like modal or many-valued logics like trinary, they are so beyond your grasp it is like explaining the strong nuclear force to a toddler

    PROTIP
    it is absolutely possible to express a logical formulation in regular every day words, we do it all the time
    you just need to be precise for it to retain validity

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tardo OP

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >This sentence is false
    It’s not a sentence, for it is missing a period.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they don’t realize the entire thread is OP talking to himself

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *