How about this: thinking as a solipsist is like reading a book in machine language (binary)

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

(November 17, 2016 at 3:37 pm)Tangra Wrote: Yet it's a fact of the world where people disagree on things.

The truth is independent of people and their disagreement.

Alasdair, I believe it to be true. You believe it to be false. Is it true or is it false?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

(November 17, 2016 at 3:33 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You're telling me a statement isn't true. It's either true or it isn't. If you look at it as true it appears false and if you look at it as false it appears true but it's still either true or false, dude.

You will notice that it's never true and false at the same time from the same perspective, it's true or false at different times from different perspectives. This is equivocation.

You realize they call them paradoxes for a reason...right?  I don't think you're going to be the guy who solves the liars paradox Ham.  Certainly not in this manner. Nor did you give an accurate description of what an equivocation was, above. Meh.

(November 17, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Tangra Wrote: Alasdair, I believe it to be true. You believe it to be false. Is it true or is it false?

It's truly either one of the other. Our beliefs and even our existence is irrelevant.

Why is it one or the other?  Responding with "it cannot be self contradictory" begs the question.

Paradox exists, they are self contradictory. We imagine that they are this way due to subtle fallacy, but it;s difficult to pin down which fallacy it might be, and not all dialetheisms could conccievably be answered with the same fallacy assuming some -were- answerable in this manner.

(November 17, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You realize they call them paradoxes for a reason...right?  I don't think you're going to be the guy who solves the liars paradox Ham.  Certainly not in this manner.  Nor did you give an accurate description of what an equivocation was, above.  Meh.

I haven't solved the paradox. The paradox is insoluble. The paradox isn't about an example of a violation of a logical absolute the paradox is about an illusion. It's about the limits of our language and the limits of our conceptualization of logic leading to a sentence appearing true when we deem it false and appearing false when we deem it true.

It's not necessary for us to take up a position either way of it being true or false for it to be either one or the other. This is an issue of equivocation caused by vagueness and the limits of our language. That's how the paradox appears to happen. "This statement is true" doesn't mean anything and nor does "This statement is false". To say something is true is to say that it is rather than that it is not. "This statement is true"= "This statement is" is what? It's an incomplete statement. Likewise "This statement is false" means "This statement is not true" or "this statement is not" that statement is not what? It's an example of a mentioning of truth without a usage of it. It's an incomplete statement masquerading as a complete one. An apparently complete statement being grammatically correct =/= a complete truth-apt statement.

Some paradox may be illusions, but again, it's not really conceivable that all paradox is illusion.  Some may also be about the structure of our language. I'm glad to see that you aren't chanting "equivocation" like a mantra anymore.  Still, as before, it's not really conceivable that -all- paradox is an issue of the structure of our language.  Plus, if we can;t trust our language...we can't actually trust logic built out of it...not even this bit you're offering about illusions and seeming, so..careful...lyou're treading towards your own dialetheism.

In any case, bringing it back round to the self. There are, sometimes, issues with self referential truth statements.

(November 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why is it one or the other?  Responding with "it cannot be self contradictory" begs the question.

No it doesn't because something either is or is not. That's the premise.

Quote:Paradox exists, they are self contradictory.  We imagine that they are this way due to subtle fallacy, but it;s difficult to pin down which fallacy it might be, and not all dialetheisms could conccievably be answered with the same fallacy assuming some -were- answerable in this manner.

Dude, the premise starts with A=A. The paradox wouldn't even arise without it. It arises because of the limits of our language. Whatever is is, whatever is not is not. "Something is and is not at the same time in the same respects" literally makes no sense.

"This statement is true and false at the same time" makes no sense.

"This statement is false" is either true or not. It appears true when we consider it false and appears false when we consider it true but either way it's only true or false at one particular time from one particular perspective. It's the limits of language.

I can simply respond with "What statement? Your statement is incomplete."

(November 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why is it one or the other?  Responding with "it cannot be self contradictory" begs the question.

No it doesn't because something either is or is not. That's the premise.

Quote:Paradox exists, they are self contradictory.  We imagine that they are this way due to subtle fallacy, but it;s difficult to pin down which fallacy it might be, and not all dialetheisms could conccievably be answered with the same fallacy assuming some -were- answerable in this manner.

Dude, the premise starts with A=A. The paradox wouldn't even arise without it. It arises because of the limits of our language. Whatever is is, whatever is not is not. "Something is and is not at the same time in the same respects" literally makes no sense.

"This statement is true and false at the same time" makes no sense.

"This statement is false" is either true or not. It appears true when we consider it false and appears false when we consider it true but either way it's only true or false at one particular time from one particular perspective. It's the limits of language.

I can simply respond with "What statement? Your statement is incomplete."

I'm generally opposed to anything being "true", to be honest.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

---

And that's the whole point when it comes to solipsism- it's the binary of experience.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk