• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Logic Defying

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 15
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,738
Hello again.

I got an idea.
Let's post sentences that defy themselves and defy logic.
To make it understandable, I will post an example:

EVERYTHING I SAY IS A LIE.

So, if the sentence is correct, that would mean that it is a lie, or in other words, false.

See what I want to say?
:ogre_haosis:

Your sentence does not defy the functionality of logic.

If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.

The above outline for truth evaluation provides a standard such that infinitely regressive statements (I.E. 'I always lie') become finite insofar as it's not grounded, or functionally true.

Many philosophers have written about the "liar paradox" (so many that it even has it's own Wikipedia page!)
 
Level 5
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
112
Your sentence does not defy the functionality of logic.

If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.

The above outline for truth evaluation provides a standard such that infinitely regressive statements (I.E. 'I always lie') become finite insofar as it's not grounded, or functionally true.

Many philosophers have written about the "liar paradox" (so many that it even has it's own Wikipedia page!)

Reading this sentence made my IQ drop by 40.
 
Level 9
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
205
I got a long one uhmmm early one morning, late last night... two dead boys got up to fight, back to back they faced each other drew their swords and shot each other a deaf policeman heard the noise he came and killed those two dead boys a mute psychotic shrieked in fright.
 
Level 7
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
210
Let's say I went into the past to say hi to someone and returned.
No paradoxes there :p
Except even the smallest and minute of changes in the past will cause a ripple effect altering EVERYTHING thereafter. SO by going back in time to say 'hi' to someone would lead to circumstance in which

1) You do not exist, ergo you do not go back in time.

2) You no longer desire or are capable of going back in time, paradox again.

3) You exist, are capable of going back in time, but now you are a completely different person and therefore someone who never existed went back in time to say 'hi'.

No winning here.
 

Vunjo

Hosted Project: SC
Level 14
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,340
That's flawed given this series of actions (assume each line is a "moment"):

Pinocchio claims in the next moment his nose will grow.

His nose does not grow.

His nose grows because his nose did not grow in the prior moment.

Life goes on.

But if he stated that his nose will grow, and it did grow, that means he was telling the truth after all?
Therefore, it's still a paradox.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
Raijin came up with an interesting one.

[20-33-04] RaijinSpark: You're not unique. Everyone else is. Therefore you are not?

The first obvious sign is that the truth of the conclusion is in the first premise: this is petitio principii, or "begging the question".
Is the truth expressed in the reasoning possible? Maybe. Let's replace «unique» for «yellow».

• • • • You are not yellow, everyone else is, you are not. Looks okay, this must be possible.


However, if you can't help the feeling something's wrong, then you're right to feel that way.

The problem is the meaning and implications of the word «unique» in itself. In most contexts, we say a being A is unique to express that the collection and sum of characteristics in being A exist only in A. Which means there doesn't exist a being B whose sum of characteristics is a replica of A, A==B is impossible.

Confused? Let's think more simply. If something is unique, then it can't be equal to anything else. If something is not unique, then there must be something equal to it.

You==Unique => Nothing's equal to you
You!=Unique => Something's equal to you

You are not unique, everyone else is. You = Red face

Case 1: ☻ ♥ ♦ ♣
Case 1: Since «everyone else is unique», there's no one in "everyone" that can be equal to "you". «You are not unique» is false.

Case 2: ☺ ☻ ♥ ♦
Case 2: «You are not unique», true, because there's someone equal to you. However, if that is so, then there's someone in «everyone» that is equal to you. Therefore, that someone is not unique, because «you» are equal to it.​


Phew, that took some time and I'm not sure if I was thorough. Maybe my reasoning is wrong. Find me a counterexample xP
 

Vunjo

Hosted Project: SC
Level 14
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,340
^ Both cases are correct, therefore, everyone's unique by that theory.
Maybe there's even a more simple way to describe it. If everyone's unique, therefore you are not equal to anyone, thus making you unique in the group of everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top