(November 19, 2016 at 2:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Only within the confines of specific logical systems. English is not such a system. Is a meaningless sentence not true? Yes it is. Is a meaningless sentence thereby false? No, it isn't. Because "not true" can refer to other states than false. So, no they aren't equivalent.
The word "true" emphasizes that something is something, the word "false" emphasises that something isn't something... when added to a statement without any meaning already it doesn't add anything to the statement. "A=A is true" just means "A=A"... if we apply that to "this statement is" then the question is what are you talking about? What does "This statement is" represent? We know "A" represents an unspecified thing.
The fact that it only happens in specific logical systems is proving my point about equivocation. All you can do is change the system and redefine the logical absolutes, it doesn't stop them being logical absolutes because you have to presuppose them in your very redefining of them.
Quote:Below you are arguing that very thing. Regardless, saying something is either true or it isn't ignores whole classes of logics for a "classical logic only" stance. You can't support such a stance because it's purely arbitrary.
I'm not arguing in favor of any system of logic, I'm saying all systems of logic are just interpretations of the logical absolutes which don't need justification. Everything is what it is and isn't what it isn't... A=A and Not A= Not A. You can redefine things so based on a new logical system something can be both true and false, but that's equivocating and playing with language... you still have to assume that something is what it is and isn't what it isn't, A=A and not A= not A for a theory like dialetheism to even work. The liar's paradox has to assume the logical absolutes for the illusion to even occur.
Quote:Your deflationary account of truth is noted. Even if I accepted your conjecture that the "not true" adds nothing to the statement, "This statement is," is a perfectly logical and whole statement asserting that the statement exists. However, "This statement is," is not equivalent to "This statement is not true," no matter how deflationary you get. One is a statement about existence, the other is a statement about a self-referential proposition.
If you define "this statement is" as "this statement exists" then adding "not true" to "this statement exists" is meaningless. "This statement exists not true" is meaningless.
Let's do it this way:
"The statement "this statement exists" is not true."
See how the problem disappears now?
Quote:Your example only works because you're assuming that happiness is a boolean state, so all you've done is restate your initial assertion that something either is or isn't true, only using happiness as your boolean variable. That's begging the question. No matter how many times you assert that something is either true or it's false (*using your equivalence) it won't make it so just because you said so. There are many logics in the world and none of them are less valid simply for disagreeing with you.
If we define "false" to mean "not true" then something indeed is either true or not true. That's a true dichotomy. I can't be wrong starting from the premise that something is either true or not.
People can redefine things so that things can be true and false at the same time and "false" doesn't mean "not true".... but that's just messing about with labels. Messing about with alternative logical systems and with logic doesn't change the logical absolutes. It doesn't change the fact that A=A and !A=!A
The point is that you have to assume that something is either true or not true and the logical absolutes to even change, redefine or relabel the system. To mess about with language is always self-defeating. You can't have something that is both true and false at the same time without presupposing that what you're saying is either true or not, you can't redefine "false" to be different from "not true" without presupposing the logical absolutes.
If we're talking logical systems, we're not addressing the logical absolutes. The systems are built upon the logical absolutes which apply to all universes, you can't redefine things without presupposing the truth of them.
(November 19, 2016 at 2:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: And here you are asserting a correspondence theory of truth as if your mere assertion is enough to close it. I don't know if you're intentionally denying other theories of truth, or if you're just ignorant to the fact that there are alternative theories. You're on a little firmer ground with respect to theories of truth because they are not as arbitrary as systems of logic, but not by much. Simply asserting your favorite theory of truth doesn't make it so.
I'm stating how I define truth because that makes most sense to me but the point is that it doesn't matter how you define things... definitions themselves are built upon the logical absolutes.
(November 18, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Neither "this statement is true" nor "this statement is not true" are complete because a statement has to have meaning before "true" or "not true" are added. "this statement is" can be true or not true? No.
(November 19, 2016 at 2:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It can be either. Your blindness to anything outside your ersatz logical realism has blinded you to the fact that it is a complete statement. Regardless, your point is moot because if we apply it to your earlier example, "I am not happy," then not happy can't modify "I am" on the same grounds. In short, all you're trying to do with this "completeness rule" is eliminate all self-referential statements as being meaningful. That's a high price to pay for a rule that you just pulled out of your ass. I for one will not pay it, and it's an arbitrary and dictatorial imposition upon natural language. What are you going to exclude next, pronouns?
That's a false analogy because "not happy" adds meaning to "I am". "not true" does not.
"I am not happy" makes sense. "It is true that I am not happy" makes sense. "I am" does not make sense. "I am happy" makes sense. "I am true" doesn't make sense. "I am not true" doesn't make sense. "true" and "not true" have to add themselves onto something that already makes sense without them. You can't confirm or deny the meaning of a statement that is meaningless before you confirm or deny it. "This is a statement." Has a meaning. The statement "this is a statement" is true, has a meaning. "this statement is" does not have a meaning. "this statement is true" does not have any more meaning than the prior one. Redefining "this statement is" to mean "this statement exists" just demonstrates the equivocation and messing about with language that I'm talking about. And "this statement exists not true" makes no sense. You have to say "the statement "this statement exists" is not true" and then the paradox disappears.
