Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j5q0ym5 wrote

How to prove anything

This is a variant of the "liar's sentence". Consider the sentence

S = "This sentence is false or grass is blue"

If S is false, then it must be true, resulting in a contradiction. If S is true, then the statement before the "or" is false, so "grass is blue" must be true. Thus we have proved grass is blue.

Obviously this a paradox stemming from self-referentiality, and we can use it to "prove" anything. But the important thing to note is that we didn't end up with a purely logical contradiction, just that grass is blue. It's only because we know this is wrong that we can recognise the paradox.

What's the upshot of this? While people are aware of self-referential statements creating paradoxes, when practicing philosophy people normally don't worry about them because they think if they crop up they'll be able to spot them because they cause a contradiction. But what I've shown is that paradoxes don't have to create logical contradictions. So whenever you see arguments which utilise self-referential statements, be aware! There could be some funny business afoot.

(i'm finally caving and posting this here because it wasn't allowed as a post. I've shortened it considerably.)

1

RealityCheckM8 t1_j6832et wrote

I am new here, and I do not know any philosophy or logic taught in college or above, so please forgive me if I come across as a moron. For the last 20 years I have just been juggling around some observations and testing out some principles I have identified. One of the principles is that there is always an exception to any statement. So if you call the statement true, I can find at least one exception for you. And if you find the same statement false, I can find an exception as well.

My whole “philosophy” (I never called it that.. it’s just an intuition building tool and method for me), revolves around selecting a person to be the observer, and also changing the environment in plausible ways. So let’s say that scientists found a way to make sure all grass is green for 2023. And you say “all grass is green.” One exception is not all grass is green. In 2022, some grass, called blue grass, was blue. You can say “let me specify: as of now”. And I can say, ok, that’s a new statement, so let me try to find another exception. Beep-boop-bot: I have selected observers Bob, Nancy, and Jacob. Bob is colorblind and cannot see green, grass is not green for him. Nancy, is completely blind and the same applies. Jacob is sleeping and cannot see green not confirm his interpretation of the grass color. So you are going to refine your statement over and over again and I am just going to find an exception over and over again. There is always one exception to the rule though, and that is the rule itself (as far as I know).

Here is how I use my philosophy as a tool. I basically have a problem: I got rocky road ice cream for my wife and she wanted strawberry but the store is closed now. Then I say: in a world where we accept “truths,” my wife is not going to be happy. And then I ask what variables can be changed, added, or removed, to make the situation better? I’m afraid of being yelled at or given a stern look… so my solution is eat the ice cream and tell her the store was closed by the time I got there. Never accept anything as truth and you will always find a new solution. A rock is a solution most the time if you throw it hard enough.

Lastly, most people will say I lied to my wife about the store being closed. But the store that held the strawberry ice cream for sale was closed and not available. That store was replaced by a store that does not have strawberry ice cream. By replaced I mean things changed. Change seems to be happening at all times, replacing reality every second. Atoms replacing atoms in space. Ice cream tubs replacing empty spaces.

Feel free to test me on finding something true and false in any statement.

2

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j68sdzq wrote

Well, that's, something... what about the proposition: "1 = 1"? Or "If Aristotle can dance, Aristotle can dance"? Are you really trying to suggest that tautologies don't exist?

1