Thread: The Liar Paradox

I thought about that to hard. Now I have a headache.

It's not paradoxical, because the statement requires both the implied premises:

1. That Pinocchio's nose always grows when he tells a lie.

and

2. That Pinocchio's nose only grows when he tells a lie.

This second premise is invalid, because the necessary exclusivity of the act has not been established; his nose may grow for any number of reasons, making his statement true and thus non-paradoxical.

On the other hand, the statement "This statement is false" is self-contained, binary and paradoxical. It is paradoxical because there is no condition where the statement could be either false or true.

Draco

Ok im lost what are you guys talking about

Originally Posted by draco7891

It's not paradoxical, because the statement requires both the implied premises:

1. That Pinocchio's nose always grows when he tells a lie.

and

2. That Pinocchio's nose only grows when he tells a lie.

This second premise is invalid, because the necessary exclusivity of the act has not been established; his nose may grow for any number of reasons, making his statement true and thus non-paradoxical.

On the other hand, the statement "This statement is false" is self-contained, binary and paradoxical. It is paradoxical because there is no condition where the statement could be either false or true.

Draco

Trying to understand this hurt my mind more than the original statement...

Le confuzzled. HaTe ThIs ShIt...too hard.

Excellent analysis Draco

I love conundrums like that. Used to read those MENSA books with all the quizzes. You know, there's a town full of liars and truth tellers and you need to ask one for directions, what do you ask to know who to trust? That sort of thing.

It's a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Basically:

You have one premise, if A happens then B happens.

Your second premise is that B has happened.

Your conclusion therefore becomes A has happened, but this is fallacious because there is no premise that makes A dependent on B (ie, A is an independent event). B depends on A happening first, but A may occur for any number of reasons.

Draco

Originally Posted by draco7891

It's not paradoxical, because the statement requires both the implied premises:

1. That Pinocchio's nose always grows when he tells a lie.

and

2. That Pinocchio's nose only grows when he tells a lie.

This second premise is invalid, because the necessary exclusivity of the act has not been established; his nose may grow for any number of reasons, making his statement true and thus non-paradoxical.

On the other hand, the statement "This statement is false" is self-contained, binary and paradoxical. It is paradoxical because there is no condition where the statement could be either false or true.

Draco

LOGICAL DOMINATION!