Hmm, Since no context is given one may not exclude the possibility that he spoke in a fit of honesty to a non-Boeotian. And that, dear boy is what all paradox suffers from, that and literalistic treatment of "the word" and a bootless belief in the one word, one meaning, which Wikipedia calls disambiguation. So far nobody has disproven Godel. With 36,600,000 Websites on paradox. why be asinine enough to 'believe' one interpretation? http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm has it that: "Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention." Binary Logic is not a reliable guide to truth. Tarski was able to prove that the assumptions [in the Liar's paradox with 165,000 sites] lead to semantic incoherence. It will be simpler to call it an oxymoron. The devil's path is a far more intriguing paradox. Have you an interpretaion of how to UNdouble bind a Double Bind? as originated by Gregory Bateson?
adrian Georges Metanomski wrote: > > > > --- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd take a different tack on Godel. ... > =============== > Before taking it have a look at > " LIAR'S PARADOX" in > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOGIC/CB_CRISIS_OF_NOUMENALISTIC_LOGIC/cbd_liar_paradox.html > which clearly shows that of all cortege following > Russell's fatuous "logic" Goedel was the most asinine, > not worth while losing a minute to tackle with. > Georges. > > =================== > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
