On 2024-03-02 18:25:40 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/2/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-01 16:56:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-29 21:59:44 +0000, olcott said:
If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question: >>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
Not needed. Those who understand English can immediately see what is
wrong there. It only makes sense to ask whether a claim is true or
false. But "What time is it?" is a question, not a claim. Therefore
the question "Is this sentence true or false: 'What time is it?'"
is not a sensible question.
Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.
How meany of the greatest you counted?
I did a key word search on Google Scholar and found that
hardly any philosophers of logic or truth understood that
the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false because it is
simply not a truth bearer. The strongest statement that
I could find suggested that the Liar Paradox might not
be a proposition.
How about those who didn't mention it at all?
Here is one of the greatest mind in the field
that did not understand this:
Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975) https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often
characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
The search for philosophers that understand that the
Liar Paradox is simply not a truth bearer and thus
has the same truth value as this question: "What time is it?"
is ongoing.
Why would anyone care about philosophers' understanding?
--
Mikko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)