That is related with the rusell paradox, since Th juzge does not say whaw
type of surprise will be. He is telling: you will receive a surprise.. but
not the type of the surprise:
a surprise about being hange plainly , or
a meta-surprise for being hangled because what I said or
a meta-meta-surprise for being hanged because what i said and you though
about etc etc.
That is similar to the problem of the sets of all sets etc.
Rusell solved his paradox using type theory: The objects have to have a
type . The type of set is one, the set of all sets is other etc. That is
why to avoid contradictions one has to specify the types.
2013/9/13 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
> The surprise can appear in a single day: "You will be hanged on monday
> and you will be surprised by it". Then he reason that he will not be
> surprised. But he is hanged and surprised by it.
> Thar reduces the problem to the example of the Diamonds from
> Brent. So the reasoning is:
> 1) The statement of the judge is self contradictory, so it is false: He
> can not tell me the hanging day and be surprised.
> but the judge tells the truth and the surprise in this case is a
> metasurprise; it is not surprised for being hanged; I´m surprised by
> its reasoning.
> But the reasoning is about the problem, not the metaproblem of either
> if the judge is lying or not. the
> word "surprised" in 1) is about being hanged, not about the truth
> value of the judge words.
> The metaproblem reasoning is:
> 2) taking the problem I reason that the Judge is lying. but if that
> occurs, I will be surprised for this reason. So I will be hanged.
> Yet there is a level-three problem, because if I reason the
> metaproblem as 2), I will not be surprised If get hanged on
> monday...... and so on
> 2013/9/13, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>:
> > 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
> > 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.
> > 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.