I haven't a clue as to what you're saying here.

There's no paradox in the equations of QM.

There's a paradox when these equations are translates into natural language e.g. English.

Something doesn't add up, oui?

:up:

Update

The Grelling-Nelson paradox is a true paradox: G & ~G

1. G & ~G
2. G (1 Simp)
3. G v P (2 Add, P is any god damned statement)
4. ~G (1 Simp)
5. P (3, 4 DS)
QED (ex falso quodlibet)

As you can see, unless we do something to halt the principle of explosion, we're doomed! One solution is to adopt paraconsistent logic, oui? :chin:

Addition/Disjunction Introduction Rule (step 3 vide supra), it doesn't feel right!

unless we do something to halt the principle of explosion, we're doomed! — Agent Smith

I gave you copious explanation why you are wrong about that. You are blatantly wrong about it. I cannot fathom what reward you find in posting blatant misinformation over and over again.

The Grelling-Nelson paradox — Agent Smith

Your example is not the Grelling-Nelson paradox.

My understanding of paraconsistent logic, from Graham Priest, is that things can contradict each other and still be true — Jackson

That sounds like dialetheism. Paraconsistent logic is characterized by the absence of the explosion principle. What Graham Priest text do you refer to?

You've accused me of many foul deeds, mon ami! :snicker:

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

This thread isn't going well.

This thread isn't going well. — Banno

You can say that again. Someone resurrected it a coupla days ago. I believe the culprit wished to point out flaws in my reasoning.

The takeaway: I need to do a lotta reading.

By the way, what's your opinion on my argument. Do we need to do an overhaul of the logic we're using in this forum and in philosophy as a whole?

Honestly, it doesn't seem to me to even be an argument. You seem simply to have misunderstood quite a bit of what is going on in talking about logic.

You talk of a "true" paradox. I wonder if it will help you if you try to set out explicitly what that might be.

Honestly, it doesn't seem to me to even be an argument. You seem simply to have misunderstood quite a bit of what is going on in talking about logic.

You talk of a "true" paradox. I wonder if it will help you if you try to set out explicitly what that might be. — Banno

WTF?

1. Grelling-Nelson paradox is a true paradox in the sense both a proposition and its negation is true.

If so,

2. The LNC must be done away with (1 & the LNC are incompatible) as an law of the thought (a counterexample exists).

Then,

3. We have to choose one version of paraconsistent logic (contradiction-tolerant but blocks ex falso quodlibet)

If not,

4. Every and any proposition is true!

The choices are clear. What'll it be?

WTF? — Agent Smith

That's unhelpful. You can't learn if you can't see your errors.

Ok, try this then. Can you set out exactly wha the Grelling-Nelson paradox is, and why it is "true'?

That's unhelpful. You can't learn if you can't see your errors.

Ok, try this then. Can you set out exactly wha the Grelling-Nelson paradox is, and why it is "true'? — Banno

Please go through the literature on the paradox. I'm unable to fathom how you know I'm wrong when you don't know what the Grelling-Nelson paradox is in the first place!

By the way, any (real/true) paradox will do! Do you know any (real/true) paradoxes? If you do, I'm sure you do, follow it to its logical conclusion in re the LNC & paraconsistent logic.

Please go through the literature on the paradox. I'm unable to fathom how you know I'm wrong when you don't know what the Grelling-Nelson paradox is in the first place! — Agent Smith

Ok, have it your way. Twit.

Can you explain the Grelling-Nelson paradox, in your own terms, in order to demonstrate that you have understood it? And also then show what it means for the Grelling-Nelson paradox to be "true"?

Because...

You seem simply to have misunderstood quite a bit of what is going on in talking about logic. — Banno

and...

You can't learn if you can't see your errors. — Banno

...hence, If you can set it out clearly we will be able to continue the discussion; if not, you may see the nature of the problem with what you take to be an argument.

There's a ton of literature on the Grelling-Nelson paradox. Please read up on 'em.

All I can say for the moment is that it's a true paradox.

Ok,

The word "heterological" describes a word that doesn't describe itself e.g. "long" is a short word and hence, it's heterological.

Question: Is the word "heterological" itself heterological?

If it is heterological then it doesn't describe itself and so it is not heterological.

If it isn't heterological then it describes itself and so it is heterological.

Paradox, oui?

SO can you explain why it must be true - what that means?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that "heterological" is neither heterological nor autological?

SO can you explain why it must be true - what that means?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that "heterological" is neither heterological nor autological? — Banno

Perhaps, but I presented an argument. Is it sound? Does it not lead to a contradiction?

Your "solution" to the paradox is standard technique (like how the liar sentence was banished from the kingdom of propositions). It did cross my mind, but autological and heterological are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive i.e. they constitutes the most powerful version of a dilemma. I could be wrong of course, show me where!

What Graham Priest text do you refer to? — TonesInDeepFreeze

You are correct, he calls it dialetheism.

1. Grelling-Nelson paradox is a true paradox in the sense both a proposition and its negation is true.

If so,

2. The LNC must be done away with (1 & the LNC are incompatible) as an law of the thought (a counterexample exists). — Agent Smith

The LNC is the reason we're interested in paradoxes. If you do away with it, we'll just accept contradictions as normal.

Could I be alive and dead at the same time? Of course! The towering human intellect falls in a ditch.

It's better to leave paradoxes in the closets we keep them in. Leave the LNC alone.

The LNC is the reason we're interested in paradoxes. If you do away with it, we'll just accept contradictions as normal.

Could I be alive and dead at the same time? Of course! The towering human intellect falls in a ditch.

It's better to leave paradoxes in the closets we keep them in. Leave the LNC alone — Tate

Well, you make complete sense to me: curiosity killed the cat (9 times in a row and now it's dead dead, deader than dead). However, if I'm correct, everyone is drawn to them like a moth to a flame. Consider it self-immolation if you like. I have no explanation for this behavior! It begs for one, wouldn't you say?

As a philosopher, demolition being your primary mission, I'd say paradoxes are right up your alley.

However, if I'm correct, everyone is drawn to them like a moth to a flame. — Agent Smith

I think it's mainly philosophical types who are drawn to them, some to slay them like dragons and some to peep through them like they're doors to somewhere else.

I believe the culprit wished to point out flaws in my reasoning. — Agent Smith

For there to be a culprit there needs to be a misdeed. It's a bizarre view that the culprit is not the one irresponsibly spreading misinformation but rather the one who corrects that misinformation.

Do we need to do an overhaul of the logic we're using in this forum and in philosophy as a whole? — Agent Smith

You claimed that classical logic, thereby classical mathematics, is devastated by the paradoxes. I gave you fulsome explanation that the paradoxes do not occur in the ordinary mathematical theories. Paradoxes such as you have mentioned are informal. For purposes of formal classical mathematics we are more careful in formulation so that the paradoxes don't occur. I explained specifically, in detail, for the case of Russell's paradox. But you choose to utterly ignore information that is given to you. I said I wondered why someone would prefer to remain ignorant rather than avail themself of information given to them even at no cost. One explanation though is that the person finds themself more charming or fascinating to fancy themself as some kind of of novel thinker rather than to exercise the common humility in recognizing that there are brilliant and wise thinkers in the past who have come up with entire fields of study, such as mathematical logic, in which we find rigorous and brilliant solutions

The choices are clear. — Agent Smith

Yes, and Agent Smith ignores the most obvious choice.

how the liar sentence was banished from the kingdom of propositions — Agent Smith

Agent Smith is ignorant of how it actually works in formal mathematics.

...there are brilliant and wise thinkers in the past who have come up with entire fields of study, such as mathematical logic, in which we find rigorous and brilliant solutions — TonesInDeepFreeze

What say you to math language holding a homological relationship to the empirical-material world it's modeling? Looking through the lens of a homological relationship between a signifier (math model) & its referent ( material object), can the math model successfully model a self-contradictory material object without containing within itself any contradictory math expressions?

I'm speculating that, if the answer to the above is "yes," then the foundational logic of math need not be overhauled in light of the experimental evidence of QM, but rather should expand its scope to include QM paradoxes.

If the answer is "no," then the foundational logic of math either needs models that, beyond exclusion, preclude the reality of QM paradoxes. If no such models can be fabricated, then foundational logic of math needs reexamination.

Agent Smith is ignorant of how it actually works in formal mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:snicker:

Yes, and Agent Smith ignores the most obvious choice. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:roll:

I gave you fulsome explanation that the paradoxes do not occur in the ordinary mathematical theories. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You just made me realize how powerful paradoxes are. Danke!

I don't fancy myself as anything. My posts will speak for themselves.

You've made plentiful accusations; some may be true, but I get the impression that, at other times, you don't know what you're talking about.