A statement asserts that a statement
is a statement that
is false.
The statement violates an axiom of logic, so it doesn’t really matter whether the ostensible statement
the so-called liar, really is a statement or has a truth value.
A statement asserts that a statement
is a statement that
is false.
The statement violates an axiom of logic, so it doesn’t really matter whether the ostensible statement
the so-called liar, really is a statement or has a truth value.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Can you explain that in this case how S0 (the first statement) violates an axiom of logic and what is that axiom?
I’m preparing to discuss this further in my next few posts. I picked the liar puzzle to illustrate some points in Peirce’s semiotic approach to logic because this hoary old precipitate appears to dissolve relatively quickly when immersed in the pragmatic medium of sign relations. But I’m not sure it works the same way for fish who swim in other seas. So there is an issue of cross-paradigm communication that needs to be discussed along the way.
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Discussion 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry