Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
xxx
Abstract: In this short note, we try to de-mystify one more fantasy, or illusion, created by
those proclaiming to be doing Science, statement which we reject, in order to calm down
the instinct of those passionate about producing Science, so that they do not waste their
time with things which are not real paradoxes, in any possible sense.
Introduction:
It is claimed that the Liar Paradox has originated by at most the second century after
Christ, as from note of the Stanford Encyclopedia (see [Paul Vincent Spade, 2005]),
which brings a nice discussion on the history of the paradox. It is not a big deal when
compared to the wealth contained in the Sorites paradox (see [xxx, 2006]), another
paradox treated by us in scientific writing, but it does bring some allurement as well for
the generous reader. Basically, the idea is that of the `external judge’ of someone else’s
speech, who should be able to come up with an opinion that is going to be universal.
The principle involved in all of the above is absolutely equivocated: Every person is
entitled to say whatever they like about someone else’s statements and this could never be
about it if ever having access to it, at some stage, in their scientific lives.
Basically, the problem goes, in what regards possible model of presentation, like this:
I always lie.
2) Assume you were listening to them, and you have been given only two choices
(classical choices):
or (exclusively)
deserves a
a) `no’
Or (exclusively) a
We now go item by item of the problem written in the English language as it is, with no
further complication, and absolutely no translation into symbols, given the level it
reaches (already explained why a person cannot fit a bigger box into a smaller one, only
the other way around, that is, no point in playing stupid and trying to translate a problem
well above the level of Mathematics into classical logic lingo (for this discussion, please
In the sections which follow, we analyze each one of the above steps, keeping the
comes, out of context, and utters they always lie, or they always say the truth
(exclusively), or even they do both (or anything else which implies judgment of their
honesty, in a universal way, of their every statement in life), what is all the same
information content, that is, none. Basically, if a classical computer is listening (and that
is the proposal of the problem, once the only accepted answers are `yes’ or `no`, so that
the computer has to be classical, and we insert the element `machine’ here for whatever is
judging themselves, has got absolutely no logical value. Basically, a system can never
judge itself, on any grounds; this is not a valid process, which may lead to any universal
inference, as the problem demands. It is obvious, even for a child, that the only person
able to emit judgment is that out of the system…If you are inside of the bubble, you
cannot judge the nature of it because you do not hold information about all outside of it,
and judgments may only be made by those dominating all available matters of the same
nature, or level, of the `attrib’ element contained in the utterance (considering a Maple
element here), therefore it can only be people living outside of the bubble and with no
contact with its surface, situation similar to that justifying the necessity to see the planet
from
the outer space, rather than from inside of it or over it, in order to judge, in what is closest
The first utterance is then empty in logical value. It is necessary that we have an external
person, or thing, to make of that statement something logically useful (for any sort of
logical system, which must, by default, mean something through which we are able to
produce inferences). What may then be inserted is, for instance, the use of a liar detector,
which will then tell us the actual information content for that assertion. The human world
is obviously not logical, only the machine world is…therefore, whatever cannot be dealt
for scientific purposes, for it does not deserve a universal decision, what means it cannot
This way, it is ridiculous to even dare thinking of that as a statement for logic, as a
logical entry, or proposition, that is, a unit that Philosophy (we have written what
Philosophy should mean: scientific discussion of whatever is logical in the human actions
on Earth which may be expressed, perfectly well, via language) can deal with, once we
aggregate the judgment made by the liar detector to the already existing statement. The
proposition will then be the revised p, now compounded: (I always lie, machine returned
Of course there are only two possibilities for a liar detector, classical ones, and that is true
in reality, so that there is also no room for any other speculation of delusional nature
Step 2: you were listening and must now write `true’ or `false`.
Indeed, you were listening…now, we must manufacture a situation in which you judge, in
real life, if that was true or false, that is, a situation in which you bother, and dare,
knowing more than the own person who has created the problem…(of course the simple
thought you can do it makes of you a megalomaniac, for you cannot know more than the
own utterer about themselves, but we keep on going…notice that the people thinking of it
as a big deal really wish to impose a context that does not exist at all; manufacture, for
All a normal person would do is stating, perhaps as Christ would: You said it, now tell
me. And the worst of all, still content zero, for there was nothing useful to you, or added
Here, we must also remind the reader that Science can only be called Science if whatever
actions which lie inside of it lead to human progress, and it does not seem relevant to
argue about such a thing at all in terms of human progress over the understanding of the
World, or ability to deal with things that in it are…However, once more, suppose it is
We then add the information from the liar detector, which will tell us something machine-
useful, which is basically what a computer demands, the proposal (output of one, input of
another) regarding the analysis (`yes’ or `no`, once more, same as with the Sorites: notice
that these problems seem to be generated in a limited person’s mind, a person who wishes
to fit the human universe inside of a classical box…that is, where there is absence of
understanding, perhaps of interaction with others in a deep level, such issues will appear).
Now, it is us only repeating the information attained via another machine, what just puts
coherence in all (machines talk, same level, that is, the whole problem was put into a
classical logic perspective and, therefore, made passive of judgment and presentation of
Step 3 is redundant.
Notice that the title for the section already implies information being added to the
reader’s mind: logical entities must be passive of writing, never only thinking, that is, to
deserve being considered as logical information, the thing must be passive of being told
Now, of course, emitting your opinion is, once more, also logically useless action. You
Therefore, the question does not make any logical sense, and any logical speaker will say:
well, based on the liar detector test, `yes’ (or `no`), so that they are being excluded from
the environment the problem wishes to belong, the logical environment, to which a being,
Basically, the liar is not fun. There is no paradox once more, and the level it reaches is far
waste their time, if ever depending on such judgments even if it were to save their own
existence.
Suppose a gun is pointed at their faces, and the utterer states that if they solve the
Why bother?
If they cannot see it is not a paradox, why would you bother arguing with non-logical
speakers?
You do not waste your time, you do not try, you distract them from the fixed idea, and
that has to be the only logical choice! Your life at stake, you will not go probability, your
only chance is making them as confused and busy as they try to make you be while you
Well, once more, as we did with the Sorites, if it were ever a paradox, point what word
a) Paradox of Language: in Language, there is allowance for anything to happen, even for
the proposer (or presenter) to ask that and the `victim’ to leave the place with a `uh!’, that
Language. Language is a tool, not a logical place, it is a tool for both entertainment and
expression…
b) Paradox of Logic: apparently it is there they place it. If so, there must be at least one
possible double inference, contradictory, passive of deduction from the same propositions
and evaluations. However, both input and output are classical, what demands, once more,
translation of a broader area into a smaller one. Such a translation can only be a forced
move. What is required for that forceful move to be plausible and acceptable is the use of
logical tools, trivially. Basically, we have proposed the liar detector, which will change
confused language speech (broad sector, involving emotions, logical decisions of any
level, even impairment, for a person may not be able to say `lying`, or say `truth`, for
instance…) into bivalent one (true, false), what is clearly possible in this case. To
deserve being called a paradox, it is necessary that the classical logic systems involved
create confusion, that is, produce two possible results for each valid interpretation.
However, once more, it also seems impossible to find paradox in this area if right
elements (or complete) of analysis are used. Notice that, for each valid interpretation,
there is only one output, what means no confusion and, therefore, no paradox in Logic, or
So, it can only be a paradox of mind, what is not worth discussing, for the mind is not a
The mind is a messy place, where we really do not want to go when writing about
Philosophy: We wish to work with what we may reach, and the mind is obviously a place
Thus, paradox of internal nature, therefore no paradox at all for it will be for some, but
The liar paradox is an allurement, as much as the Sorites paradox is. The liar paradox
exists to show the complexity of a human mind, while the Sorites paradox exists to show
Place it belongs to (please refer to our 2008 work from the references, [xxx, 2008])?
Philosophy of Mind.
Adequate addressing then being made only there, but with the problem corrected, revised,
according to our well-posedness theory for philosophical problems (see work from 2008,
References:
[xxx, 2006] xxx (2006); A Solution to the Sorites, Semiotica, 160 (1/4).
[Paul V. Spade, 2005] Spade, Paul V. (2005), Insolubles, The Stanford Encyclopedia of
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/insolubles/.