Why is "this statement is false." considered to be

>>8657258
That's because you're an idiot.

>>8657258
Wrong, try again.

This statement is false
That certainly has meaning. But it has only one meaning, it attaches the property of false to 'this statement', which refers to itself.
The problem with this statement is that its content directly affects its validity. What this demonstrates is it that a statement that refers to itself is not reliable.
There is no point in proving if the opposite is false or true of an invalid statement.
The statements:
This statement is not false
This statement is true
Are valid, but meaningless. The only thing they express is the one thing we already expect of them. Were they not true, they would be useless.
There is no room for rationalization in logic. A statement that only expresses its own validity or invalidity is respectively useless and meaningless.
A statement that evaluates to either false or true has nothing to do with the wordplay above. The fact that 'this statement is false' is meaningless does in no way impact on how we should consider booleans.

>>8657289
>>8657294
Well the OP isn't really trying to say anything insightful about logic.
I don't think I worded it that great, but it's more a comment on how flawed our writing systems are. That just because we can form a statement that doesn't look like complete nonsense doesn't mean we haven't still created something nonsensical.

I mean consider "invalid" statements. They're not true, but also clearly not false.
Take 2+2<green for example
It's not true but if it were false then the statement 2+2>=green would be true, which it clearly isn't.

But what if similar problems arise to the "meaning" we think we're creating? Just because something looks like a valid statement doesn't mean it doesn't also have some nonsense in it unless you're going to claim our system of writing mathematics is flawless.

Maybe "not true" wasn't the right way to word the OP, but something else might be needed. I wouldn't say "invalid" either since that's reserved specifically for obviously nonsense statements.
But maybe the term "invalidated" could be used?

e.g. due to the possiblity of us generating nonsensical statements (in meaning) we should first dub a statement "invalidated" when it has a contradiction and then test whether its negation is true before we think of it as a valid statement and call it "false".

OP you are right kind of.

Its similar to how you can't take the square root of a negative number, so you need to invent complex numbers to handle that.

Same thing here. That statement doesn't work in strict binary logic, so you would need to expand your system to a ternary logic.

This statement is not true

>>8657332
FUCK YOU

>>8657332
> "This statement is not true"
> Equivalent to "It is true that this statement is not true"
> Equivalent to "This statement is true and this statement is not true"
> Evaluates to false
> Paradox averted

I like where this thread is going, it's applied logic.

From my understanding, one can deduct/induct/abduct a proposed fact as valid, never absolute truth

Nothing in our existence is confirmed, it's only validated.

The argument that life exists due to evolution is validated, but never a "100% truth." The scientific theories only further validate its premises.

The belief that a designer designed everything and created the planet is proposed as invalid, since there exists no evidence to validate its premises.

But I also remember when taking a class on logic (was a required general education credit for my degree) that your use of a word is scrutinized. You can say a deduction has a valid conclusion, but not a true statement.

The example I remember specifically is induction of the sounds a dog makes
>the sounds observed coming from a dog are barking noises
>therefore all dogs can only produce a barking noise

We can study the anatomy to validate that dogs aren't able to speak, and tie in the evidence that all dogs have only been observed barking, but can not say with 100% truth and fact that all dogs can only bark or yelp or whatever noise we hear dogs make.

Dunno if this applies to OPs paradox argument, but truth is never absolute, only validated

>>8657258
There are 2 statements being made:
>this statement is false
>OP's statement that 'this statement is false'

Since there is nothing to confirm if both statements are false or true, both statements are possibly false/true

>>8657258
You have identified one solution, but a criticism would be that whatever your version of "not" means, it is really some subcontrary operator, and isn't the logical negation operator we expect (whereby "not true" and "false" should denote the same thing). Probably the strongest argument for this is intuitionistic logic, which gives the semantics of a logical expression by saying that an expression is true if you can demonstrate it is true according to some system of proof (be those your senses, a particular proof calculus, etc).

>>8657299
>>8657345
>>8657356
This is Arthur Prior's solution (and actually originally due to Jean Buridan, medieval philosopher). He resolves the paradox by saying that the semantics of a proposition P includes an implicit assertion of its own truth. This is probably the cleanest solution, though there are some objections (not many as the others).

Another approach is to reject "this sentence means anything" as a meaningful proposition in (presumably) propositional logic. Just like "oww", "how are you?" and "if america did not join WW2 then nazi germany would have won" don't have logical forms. This is essentially banning self-reference in formulae.

A reaction to banning self-reference in formulae is that self-referential statements can clearly be meaningful. For example, "this sentence is six words long" is self-referential and clearly true. There seems to be no meaningful philosophical reason to ban self-reference (though doing so has nice properties which you might want for practical reasons). Kripke kind of takes this approach, but with some more subtleties.

>>8657387
Woops, I meant to say that Kripke takes the approach of saying "this sentence means anything" is meaningless, by saying it needs to be grounded in context to take on meaning (essentially).

Those who want self-reference usually rely on a tiered understanding of propositions based on self-reference. The semantics is convoluted and set-theoretic, but basically you take a "supervaluation" meaning if the proposition is stable (eventually becomes true at all tiers above a certain point) then it is true. Supervaluations used to be really popular but fell out of favour. Tarski and Russell both had tiered-like approaches.

A last major approach is to say that some statements can be both true and false (dialetheism). Graham Priest is the champion of this, and it's a kind of niche and recent idea. I've never read about it so can't really explain the philosophical justifications for this (but it resolves the paradox; the sentence is both true and false). So honestly it sounds retarded to me, but it is one approach.

>>8657391
Curious, do you have a philosophy minor or degree? Great explanations.
What's your take on Humes law? Agree or disagree?