FOR PHILOSOPHY NERDS:
The Solution To The Liar’s Paradox. (Really)
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 21:02:07 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106088348196623472
FOR PHILOSOPHY NERDS:
The Solution To The Liar’s Paradox. (Really)
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 21:02:07 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106088348196623472
THE SOLUTION TO THE LIAR’S PARADOX
(really)
https://propertarianinstitute.com/2021/04/18/the-solution-to-the-liars-paradox-is-simple-its-a-lie-heres-why/
#Philosophy
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 20:33:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383881501587107847
Summary: The liar’s paradox, like all paradoxes, and most if not all philosophical claims of depth, complexity, or undecidability consists of nothing but malformed statements in the grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation that violate the contract of suggestion (truthful speech) and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit, between speaker and audience. Given the Liar’s Paradox (And all the historical equivalents):
“[ everything in this box is false ]” 1. Langauge consists of “Incremental suggestion by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation”, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 2. The liar’s paradox is grammatically incorrect because it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information – in algorithmic logic this is called an infinite loop: a malformed statement that violates the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 3. Human Cognition: Consists of the series: Sensation, Logic (constancy of relations in time frame), Predictive Memory (elements), Episodic Memory (location, place(space), direction, turn direction, head direction, eye direction, objects, landmarks, boundaries, exits), Auto-Association, Wayfinding (Recursion), Adversarial Prediction, Thalmic Awareness, Attention-Recursion, Choice, Action, Repeat (recurse). 4. Human Grammatical Capacity is just an application of the primitive hierarchy of movement: Continuous Recursive Disambiguation. 5. Human Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammars of continuous recursive disambiguation. 6. Human Speech organized by Grammarof Continuous Recursive Disambiguation consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continuous recursive disambiguation as due diligence against error, bias, deceit both parties. 7. All Paradigms (disciplines) from logic and math to Ordinary Language to the fictionalisms (occult->theology, sophistry->idealism, magic-pseudoscience) consist of either deflationary elimination of dimensions of human perceptible constant relations or inflationary removal of constraints on observables open to human sense perception and increases in permissible dimensions of fictions. 8. Words don’t mean things people do. People fail to communicate, or we fail to interpret their failure of communication, or we err in interpretation. 9. The only intent (meaning) of a paradox is to deceive (or create an illusion) – because it was created by intent – just as are optical illusions. Humans find very few natural conditions that can ‘fool’ human sense perception for more than a few moments -including such complex imagery as zebras. 10. Success of these illusions that exploit human intuition is dependent on human ignorance of their construction. We can learn to detect and correct for them just as we can learn to detect and correct for mirages. 11. The example of the liar’s paradox illustrates operational (algorithmic) vs set logic and why the foundations of mathematics, philosophy, and the philosophy of language movements failed to produce the sciences they sought – and even physics to economics suffer from this continued failure. 12. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence. 13. We call this failure of the philosophical and logical movments ‘mathiness‘ or the failure to grasp the operational foundations of mathematics, vs the verbal, set, or symbolic reduction of mathematics for ease of human use. (In particular that the computational reducibility of mathematics is far smaller than the computational possibility of operations.) 14. The failure of thought leadership in western civilization in the 20th is due to the failure of Babbage (or his peers) to generalize his discovery of computation, allowing a century of innumeracy, sophistry, and pseudoscience, to crate what Hayek called ‘the new mysticism’. 15. It has taken the Turing revolution, the computational revolution, the neuroimaging revolution, and the AI revolution (and one simple insight of Chomsky’s application of Turning) to solve a problem that never should have occurred, and now we must reverse the better part of two centuries of sophistry and pseudoscience, producing a third scientific revolution that corrects them. [End of Document]
Summary: The liar’s paradox, like all paradoxes, and most if not all philosophical claims of depth, complexity, or undecidability consists of nothing but malformed statements in the grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation that violate the contract of suggestion (truthful speech) and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit, between speaker and audience. Given the Liar’s Paradox (And all the historical equivalents):
“[ everything in this box is false ]” 1. Langauge consists of “Incremental suggestion by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation”, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 2. The liar’s paradox is grammatically incorrect because it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information – in algorithmic logic this is called an infinite loop: a malformed statement that violates the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 3. Human Cognition: Consists of the series: Sensation, Logic (constancy of relations in time frame), Predictive Memory (elements), Episodic Memory (location, place(space), direction, turn direction, head direction, eye direction, objects, landmarks, boundaries, exits), Auto-Association, Wayfinding (Recursion), Adversarial Prediction, Thalmic Awareness, Attention-Recursion, Choice, Action, Repeat (recurse). 4. Human Grammatical Capacity is just an application of the primitive hierarchy of movement: Continuous Recursive Disambiguation. 5. Human Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammars of continuous recursive disambiguation. 6. Human Speech organized by Grammarof Continuous Recursive Disambiguation consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continuous recursive disambiguation as due diligence against error, bias, deceit both parties. 7. All Paradigms (disciplines) from logic and math to Ordinary Language to the fictionalisms (occult->theology, sophistry->idealism, magic-pseudoscience) consist of either deflationary elimination of dimensions of human perceptible constant relations or inflationary removal of constraints on observables open to human sense perception and increases in permissible dimensions of fictions. 8. Words don’t mean things people do. People fail to communicate, or we fail to interpret their failure of communication, or we err in interpretation. 9. The only intent (meaning) of a paradox is to deceive (or create an illusion) – because it was created by intent – just as are optical illusions. Humans find very few natural conditions that can ‘fool’ human sense perception for more than a few moments -including such complex imagery as zebras. 10. Success of these illusions that exploit human intuition is dependent on human ignorance of their construction. We can learn to detect and correct for them just as we can learn to detect and correct for mirages. 11. The example of the liar’s paradox illustrates operational (algorithmic) vs set logic and why the foundations of mathematics, philosophy, and the philosophy of language movements failed to produce the sciences they sought – and even physics to economics suffer from this continued failure. 12. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence. 13. We call this failure of the philosophical and logical movments ‘mathiness‘ or the failure to grasp the operational foundations of mathematics, vs the verbal, set, or symbolic reduction of mathematics for ease of human use. (In particular that the computational reducibility of mathematics is far smaller than the computational possibility of operations.) 14. The failure of thought leadership in western civilization in the 20th is due to the failure of Babbage (or his peers) to generalize his discovery of computation, allowing a century of innumeracy, sophistry, and pseudoscience, to crate what Hayek called ‘the new mysticism’. 15. It has taken the Turing revolution, the computational revolution, the neuroimaging revolution, and the AI revolution (and one simple insight of Chomsky’s application of Turning) to solve a problem that never should have occurred, and now we must reverse the better part of two centuries of sophistry and pseudoscience, producing a third scientific revolution that corrects them. [End of Document]
11. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 19:57:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383872238089228291
Reply addressees: @_notmo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383871664203571202
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@_notmo 10. Which consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continjuous recursive disambiguation as due dilligence against error, bias, deceit both parties.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1383871664203571202

Q: “What are the female(Leftist) tactics of deceit by evasion?”
Conflating Approval and Disapproval with Truth and Falsehood, using:
0. Disapproval
1. Denial,
2. Evasion,
3. Deflection,
4. Reflection, and
5. Projection
(It’s GSRRM categories. I have to add to it a bit) https://t.co/v78KEZEPU7

Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 18:21:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383848296381227014
(lol… working on that paragraph at the moment..)
Conflating Approval and Disapproval vs Truth and Falsehood, using:
1. Denial,
2. Evasion,
3. Deflection,
4. Reflection, and
5. Projection
(This is GSRRM at the first level of abstraction.)
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 18:18:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383847377610493959
Reply addressees: @juniorwolf @LukeWeinhagen @ThruTheHayes @G_Eats_Midwits
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383844684502487045
RT @curtdoolittle: @CruzControl72 “It can’t be true beccause it’s unpleasant.”
“Calculus is hard so it can’t be true”
“I can’t understand iā¦
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 01:25:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383592464716492807
I wish there were people who understood the importance of the solution to the liar’s paradox, as a formal constraint on language, that ends most of philosophical sophistry. Its one of those things that ends centuries of sophistry in philosophy, and exposes its failing in 20thc.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 21:05:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383527166676070412
“It can’t be true beccause it’s unpleasant.”
“Calculus is hard so it can’t be true”
“I can’t understand it, so it’s nonsensical”
Female cognitive bias:
… desirability over truth
… equality over proportionality
… equality over distribution
… quantity over quality
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 16:54:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383463907847667720
Reply addressees: @CruzControl72
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383462990364565509
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@CruzControl72 Not an argument. Science is painful. I’m sure you would have joined the throng criticizing socrates, aristotle, galileo and darwin. I don’t expect anything different. Science says your a bot. A domesticated animal trained to speak. The illusion of agency. It’s OK. It’s Evolution.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1383462990364565509