On 01/08/2013 12:18 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool<[email protected]> wrote:
As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's
paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some
alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for example, just
ignore it and say it's meaningless or something.
The paradox CFJs are good evidence that we try to avoid having
alternate logic for free-floating statements; in any case, otherwise,
we could by the same token call the conditions of your promises
meaningless.
With a free-floating sentence, you can just call the whole thing
meaningless. That is the most common resolution.
But presumably you don't want to call the whole promise rule meaningless.
As I explained in my initial message, the conditions of my promise are
not, in and of themselves, self-referential or mutually referential.
They're ordinary sentences and, so they're not meaningless on their own.
The loop is closed by the rule.
