On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:37:19 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:28 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On 9/12/2013 2:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> Time for some philosophy then :) > >> > >> Here's a paradox that's making me lose sleep: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox > >> > >> Probably many of you already know about it. > >> > >> What mostly bothers me is the epistemological crisis that this > >> introduces. I cannot find a problem with the reasoning, but it's > >> clearly false. So I know that I don't know why this reasoning is > >> false. Now, how can I know if there are other types of reasoning that > >> I don't even know that I don't know that they are correct? > > > > > > The wiki article gives most resolutions of the antinomy. The logical > > contradiction is seen most clearly in case of the man who says to his > wife, > > "Here's your anniversary present. You'll be completely surprised by > what it > > is when you open it. It's diamond earrings." So, does the wife reason > that > > she'll be surprised, yet he's said it's diamond earrings; so it can't be > > diamond earrings because then she wouldn't be surprised. Then she opens > the > > box and it's diamond earrings AND she's surprised. > > I don't think this is equivalent because in your scenario the > statement is necessarily a lie. Either the wife will not be surprised > or the present is not diamond earrings. In the unexpected hanging > scenario, the judge is not lying. It is clearly possible for the > prisoner to get a knock at his door Monday or maybe Wednesday and be > surprised. The judge did not lie, but the reasoning seems to indicate > that the surprise is impossible. I think there's something deeper > going on here. >
Why do you think that the judge didn't lie? If the premise contains the fact of his truthfulness as a solution to the riddle, it has to make the justification for that evident. You can't just say "The frog says two times two is nine, and frogs are always right" without giving some justification of one statement or the other. Craig > > Telmo. > > > It just shows that if you reason from contradictory statements you can > > arrive at any conclusion. > > > > Brent > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
