GENIUS FORUMS

Is it true that the statement "This statement is true" is true?

Can any declaration as such have any true or false value?

But the truth value inside the statement itself does not equal the truth of the whole statement. That statement cannot evaluate itself during its construction ('evaluation of expression") and as such has to be read as equivalence: 'statement' = 'true' or just as being meaningless or indeterminate. The contextual evaluation "is that statement true or false" is of another order and the answer to that appears to be indeterminate, it's not true or false since "statement" and "true" do not appear well enough defined inside the original statement, their references being too weak or incomplete to address. A lot in life is actually like that, too blurred and undetermined to make any sharp evaluation about.

Hello, Dibs! (:

But the truth value inside the statement itself does not equal the truth of the whole statement. That statement cannot evaluate itself during its construction ('evaluation of expression") and as such has to be read as equivalence: 'statement' = 'true' or just as being meaningless or indeterminate.

Well, you can certainly tell you're in IT! (Refer bold text.)

The truth value of the statement is the whole statement.

The contextual evaluation "is that statement true or false" is of another order [snip]

What do you call the first "order", and what is this other order you refer to in the statement above?

PS: I just finished watching all three seasons and the first episode of the fourth of Game of Thrones in four days (lol). I think I've begun to grow out of the fantasy genre. It's still more'ish, but I was really enjoying the representative authenticity of the feudal era before all the black magic and dragons came along. The books are probably a different story (heh), though.

Leyla Shen wrote:The truth value of the statement is the whole statement.

"This statement" is not a statement, it's a referral to nowhere.

The contextual evaluation "is that statement true or false" is of another order [snip]

What do you call the first "order", and what is this other order you refer to in the statement above?

The evaluation of a statement, its truth value and syntax (is it sound? is it valid?) is unlike asserting the truth of, for example, 'existence' or 'this!'.

PS: I just finished watching all three seasons and the first episode of the fourth of Game of Thrones in four days (lol).

That doesn't sound healthy! Thirty episodes of nearly an hour, so you've been watching eight hours of Thrones a day? Are you feeling okay?

I think I've begun to grow out of the fantasy genre. It's still more'ish, but I was really enjoying the representative authenticity of the feudal era before all the black magic and dragons came along. The books are probably a different story (heh), though.

Authenticity, really? It's not the magic and dragons which form the fantastic escapism of that series. Unless you mean Carice van Houten's nudity!

The show might be somewhat authentic in displaying modern culture's increasing political, materialistic, crumbling empire of dirt, with the icy forces of nihilism ready to invade and walkover the remains. :-)

"This statement" is not a statement, it's a referral to nowhere.

But "this statement is true" is a statement by definition, and it's self-referential. You're treating it like a proposition. Is it a proposition?

The evaluation of a statement, its truth value and syntax (is it sound? is it valid?) is unlike asserting the truth of, for example, 'existence' or 'this!'.

Sound? Valid? It's a statement, not an argument. Can only arguments be true or false, then?

That doesn't sound healthy! Thirty episodes of nearly an hour, so you've been watching eight hours of Thrones a day? Are you feeling okay?

Ha! Certainly not, m'Lord. More like a flippen wildling girl turned white walker...

Authenticity, really? It's not the magic and dragons which form the fantastic escapism of that series. Unless you mean Carice van Houten's nudity!

The show might be somewhat authentic in displaying modern culture's increasing political, materialistic, crumbling empire of dirt, with the icy forces of nihilism ready to invade and walkover the remains. :-)

Hm, come to think of it, you're right, you dirty bastard. It's more like soft, feminine porn! I bet you never read the novels! :D

PS: The first night, I actually watched the whole first season non-stop. I was up til 5AM doing so, and off to work at 7.30! I'm too old for this shit, man...

But "this statement is true" is a statement by definition, and it's self-referential. You're treating it like a proposition. Is it a proposition?

Well, it equals the phrase "this statement" with "true", which is assigning equivalence. But linguistically "this statement" needs to refer to a statement, not one that is still in the process of being made. That's why I called it "incomplete" and "undetermined". And yes, I can see it's the mirror before the mirror effect in a way, but just like that tunnel, the definitions fade into indetermination, leaving only some effect.

Sound? Valid? It's a statement, not an argument. Can only arguments be true or false, then?

When you asked "is it true", you imply that it's some kind of proposition with the possibility of being true or false.

More like a flippen wildling girl turned white walker

Ah well, the flu then. You should watch Walking Dead now!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:L: But "this statement is true" is a statement by definition, and it's self-referential. You're treating it like a proposition. Is it a proposition?

D: Well, it equals the phrase "this statement" with "true", which is assigning equivalence. But linguistically "this statement" needs to refer to a statement, not one that is still in the process of being made. That's why I called it "incomplete" and "undetermined". And yes, I can see it's the mirror before the mirror effect in a way, but just like that tunnel, the definitions fade into indetermination, leaving only some effect.

L: Sound? Valid? It's a statement, not an argument. Can only arguments be true or false, then?

D: When you asked "is it true", you imply that it's some kind of proposition with the possibility of being true or false.

But it actually is, by definition, a statement. The only way we can determine its truth value with falsification as the criterion is to understand it exactly that way. That is, to understand it as the proposition that "This statement is true" itself conforms with the definition of "statement", which it does. But what gnaws at one about it, I think, is the problem of Platonic Forms. "Spirit", "Being", "Idea", "Truth"—and all of them elevated to the status of proper noun, no less!

Nietzsche called Plato and his ilk dogmatists for this very reason. "Christianity," he said "is Platonism for 'the People'"...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Ah well, the flu then. You should watch Walking Dead now!

Oh? And what's wrong with this place? ((((((:

The statement can claim whatever it wants... But does it really claims something?

The assingment of the word truth, and the predicate of being true are two distinct things.

So, does the statement "This statement is true" have the same truth value as the statements "All unicorns have a single horn" and "All bachelors [unmarried men] are unmarried"?

I'm thinking more about the statement "This statement is red", is it red?

Leyla Shen wrote:So, does the statement "This statement is true" have the same truth value as the statements "All unicorns have a single horn" and "All bachelors [unmarried men] are unmarried"?

But this is the rub:

"This statement" - is not a proposition.

while

"All bachelors are unmarried" - is.

but

"This unicorn" - isn't.

Another approach is possible though: to declare, state or assert something could be said to be "true by definition", literary even. Like Descartes. I think so I exist, here's a thought, so here's existence. But is existence also truth? Otherwise sustainability would equal truth: hey, this can sustain itself in our space and time, verbally or physically: it must be some kind of truth! But as I said before I think it's better to call it "indefinite" or having "references being too weak or incomplete to address". And again, a lot in our life is actually like that, too blurred and undetermined to make any sharp evaluation about. The ambivalence of all experience for sure.

The statement is in the form A is B. And with the self-reference it develops into either A is (A is B) or (A is B) is B, or even the identity (A is B) is (A is B). With A as "this statement" and B as "truth" or "red". Maybe the problem would be if truth is defined in this manner in the first place.

As you can see it's relational.
any which way 'arm in arm'.
dependent arising as 'no other foundation to which for purpose of attribution'.

Bobo wrote:The statement is in the form A is B. And with the self-reference it develops into either A is (A is B) or (A is B) is B, or even the identity (A is B) is (A is B). With A as "this statement" and B as "truth" or "red". Maybe the problem would be if truth is defined in this manner in the first place.

But is it really self-reference or just in-complete? You cannot evaluate "this statement" as a partial statement since it could refer to many things like the statement just made earlier or something else. If it would relate to the whole sentence still to be completed, you'll get an open-ended loop, something permanently incomplete. But nothing which could be true or false. Therefore the best thing seems to be calling it "artifact" or "effect".

But this is the rub:

"This statement" - is not a proposition.

while

"All bachelors are unmarried" - is.

but

"This unicorn" - isn't.

Let's play "spot the difference", eh? Here's a hint: "connectives".

Another approach is possible though: to declare, state or assert something could be said to be "true by definition", literary even. Like Descartes. I think so I exist, here's a thought, so here's existence. But is existence also truth?

No, "existence is truth" does not follow at all. What would follow is that the statement is true by definition.

The statement is in the form A is B. And with the self-reference it develops into either A is (A is B) or (A is B) is B, or even the identity (A is B) is (A is B).

Right.

With A as "this statement" and B as "truth" or "red".

Well, no. In this case, where A is "this statement", B is neither "truth" nor "red", it's "true".

Maybe the problem would be if truth is defined in this manner in the first place.

In the manner you just expressed, yes, I can see how that is problematic!

Leyla Shen wrote:

But this is the rub:

"This statement" - is not a proposition.

while

"All bachelors are unmarried" - is.

but

"This unicorn" - isn't.

Let's play "spot the difference", eh? Here's a hint: "connectives".

But as I wrote before: conjunction to nowhere or something incomplete. It's undefined and so even "true by definition" does not apply. There's nothing distinctively being defined: no precise true of false can follow.

Another approach is possible though: to declare, state or assert something could be said to be "true by definition", literary even. Like Descartes. I think so I exist, here's a thought, so here's existence. But is existence also truth?

No, "existence is truth" does not follow at all. What would follow is that the statement is true by definition.

Indeed, it does not follow and therefore you answered your own O.P. : no.

All bachelors are unmarried

objects that are separate and at the same time in communication with each other.
entanglement.
dependent.

Indeed, it does not follow and therefore you answered your own O.P. : no.

Well, no. You see, I’m not convinced you’ve answered the question in the OP coherently.

Here’s why:

Diebert: Can any declaration as such have any true or false value?

But the truth value inside the statement itself does not equal the truth of the whole statement. That statement cannot evaluateitself during its construction ('evaluation of expression") and as such has to be read as equivalence: 'statement' = 'true' or just as being meaningless or indeterminate. The contextual evaluation "is that statement true or false" is of another order and the answer to that appears to be indeterminate, it's not true or false since "statement" and "true" do not appear well enough defined inside the original statement, their references being too weak or incomplete to address. A lot in life is actually like that, too blurred and undetermined to make any sharp evaluation about.

If you are arguing equivalence in this case (i.e. “This statement” = a statement = true” is false (which I think you are – and do correct me if I’m wrong), then I don’t see anything indeterminate or meaningless about it, since it necessarily follows from this that the thing “statement” a) must have a truth value, and b) must be equivalent to the sum of its parts (antecedent + consequent) to be a statement. That’s why you suggested that whilst “This statement is true” is not a proposition, All bachelors are unmarried men is: i.e., “All bachelors/unmarried men” = unmarried = true. Therefore, your argument is, in fact, that the statement “This statement is true” is neither indeterminate nor meaningless, but false, no?

Quid pro quo, baby.

tacking a couple of synonyms together such as bachelor/unmarried man doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction.
a conventional truth,
so what?
ultimately meaningless because dependent.

Leyla Shen wrote:If you are arguing equivalence in this case (i.e. “This statement” = a statement = true” is false (which I think you are – and do correct me if I’m wrong)

BUZZ. What I wrote, several times by now is "the answer to that appears to be indeterminate". The latest confusion might have arisen because I let you answer your own question of "it" being true with the answer "no". But it isn't false either I should have added (again).

If 'true' is taken as 'an antecedent properly tied to its consequent', it seems as it wouldn't function as either an antecedent or a consequent. At least in the case where the antecedent is not a proposition. And 'true' probably isn't one.

If the truth value of a statement is determined by its propositional content alone (in this case, “This statement = true”), any statement which contains and is therefore itself an explicit truth claim (either true or false) is necessarily false. There is absolutely nothing meaningless or indeterminate about that. Quite the contrary! I mean, you know, there is no possibility that that statement will suddenly transform into something other than what it is.