From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all. Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.
There are none. Not even the greatest expert
in the field of *Truthmaker Maximalism* will
commit to the statement that the Liar Paradox
is not a valid proposition.

I do not mean to commit myself to the claim
that denying that the Liar expresses a proposition
is the best solution to the Liar paradox, nor do
I want to commit Truthmaker Maximalism to that claim.

*Truthmaker Maximalism defended*
https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

Beyond this there are many "undecidable" instances
of decision problems that are only {undecidable}
because they do not reject semantically unsound
expressions.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/28/25 1:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.
There are none. Not even the greatest expert
in the field of *Truthmaker Maximalism* will
commit to the statement that the Liar Paradox
is not a valid proposition.

But there is, the Liar's Paradox is a non-truth bearing statement.

  I do not mean to commit myself to the claim
  that denying that the Liar expresses a proposition
  is the best solution to the Liar paradox, nor do
  I want to commit Truthmaker Maximalism to that claim.

*Truthmaker Maximalism defended*
https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

Beyond this there are many "undecidable" instances
of decision problems that are only {undecidable}
because they do not reject semantically unsound
expressions.

But it isn't INSTANCES of problems that are undecidable, but PROBLEM themselves.

To be a proper problem, each instance must have a correct answer.

Note, in the case of the Halting Problem, the instances are SPECIFIC computations, which are FULL defined algorithms with fully defined inputs.

That means that ALL the code of the program to be decided has been
fixed, which for H^/D/DD that means thaat the H / HH / HHH is FULLY
defined as a specific instance.

Your insanity of trying to talk about deciding on "infinite sets" of
pairings just shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Your problem is you just don't know the meaning of the words you use,
and in fact your logic tries to deny that they actually have their
specific meaning, which is just the cause of you being the pathological
liar you are.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 20.20:

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.

There is. A resolution can be accepted even if you don't accept it.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/29/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 20.20:

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.

There is. A resolution can be accepted even if you don't accept it.

Thee are zero resolutions to the liar paradox
that are even widely accepted.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.59:

On 11/29/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 20.20:

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a >>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.

There is. A resolution can be accepted even if you don't accept it.

Thee are zero resolutions to the liar paradox
that are even widely accepted.

The claim was not about "widely accepted".
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/1/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.59:

On 11/29/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 20.20:

On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a >>>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

If that was true then there would be at least
one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.

There is. A resolution can be accepted even if you don't accept it.

Thee are zero resolutions to the liar paradox
that are even widely accepted.

The claim was not about "widely accepted".

% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

Proves beyond all possibly doubt that the Liar
Paradox is semantically incorrect to all that
understand this proof.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2