OK. So now let's go back to your Possibility two

In the expression "this sentence is false", which sentence is "this" referring to?

There are several possibilities.

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the expression "this sentence" is false. But this is meaningless, and is similar to saying "this house" is false. — RussellA

So let's substitute "has five words" for "is false" but otherwise keep your reasoning word for word:

In the expression "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?
Possibility 2
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" has five words. Of course it's false, but per your reasoning it appears meaningful.

In the expression "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?
Possibility 2
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" has five words. Of course it's false, but per your reasoning it appears meaningful. — EricH

As I see it, in the self-referential case, where "this sentence" is referring to itself, this means that "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence".

Being self-referential, "this sentence" it is not referring to anything outside itself, which includes any words that happen to follow it, whether they are "has five words" or "is false". In fact, the expression could equally be "this sentence is on top of the mountain", "this sentence is extremely confusing" or "this sentence a b c", where a, b and c could be any words at all

Being self-referential, there is no semantic connection between "this sentence" and "a b c".

It initially seems that "this sentence", "the house" and "three mountains" are all meaningful parts of language. This is certainly the case when "the house" is referring to the house next to the river, and "three mountains" is referring to the Alps in Italy. But in the special case of self-reference where "this sentence" is referring to itself, "this sentence" may appear to be a part of language but in fact isn't. "This sentence" is just shapes on the screen.

In the self-referential case, that we see cognize a meaning in "this sentence" is accidental, in the same way that we see shapes in clouds or faces on Mars.

[img]http://

In the self-referential case, as "this sentence" is not a meaningful part of language, but just accidental shapes on the screen, it has no linguistic meaning.

Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Open to doubt. — RussellA

You think Mark Twain was someone other Samuel Clemens?

is this something X in the world Samuel Clemens, or has the something X in the world been named "Samuel Clemens"? — RussellA

Both.

"This string has five words" was named "The Pentastring", and "This string has five words" is the Pentastring.

As naming something in the world "a cat" doesn't make that something a cat, in that I could name a horse "a cat", naming something in the world "Samuel Clemens" doesn't make that something Samuel Clemens. — RussellA

If you name something (other than the author of 'Roughing It') "Samuel Clemens" then, of course, that thing doesn't become the person who wrote 'Roughing It'. But "Samuel Clemens" may also refer to something other than the person who wrote 'Roughing It'. If someone today has the last name "Clemens" and names her baby "Samuel", then the name "Samuel Clemens" refers to her baby as well as, in other contexts, it refers to the author of 'Roughing It'.

My naming that tall tower in Paris in the 7th Arr of Champs de Mars "a kangaroo" doesn't make that something in the world a kangaroo. — RussellA

You're still mixed up. You ignore what has been pointed out to you. I didn't name "This string has five words" with "a Pentastring". And I didn't define a predicate "is a Pentastring". Rather, I made up the name "Pentastring" and used it to name "This string has five words".

Giving something in the world a name doesn't make that something into what has been named. — RussellA

When the great trumpet player William Alonzo Anderson was nicknamed "Cat", of course, he didn't become a cat, but he is Cat.

Just for fun, some more in the menagerie of great jazz artists:

Hawk is Coleman Hawkins though he was not a hawk.

Bird is Charlie Parker though he was not a bird.

Rabbit is Johnny Hodges though he was not a rabbit.

Bunny is Roland Bernard Berigan though he was not a rabbit.

The Frog is Ben Webster though he was not frog.

Chick is William Henry Webb though he was not a chicken.

The Lion is William Henry Joseph Bonaparte Bertholf Smith though he was not a lion.

Pony is Norwood Poindexter though he was not a horse.

Just because something in the world has been named "Samuel Clemens", that doesn't mean that Samuel Clemens exists in the world. — RussellA

The baby born on November 30, 1835 in Florida, Missouri existed no matter what his name would be. That baby was named "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" and was Samuel Clemens. If another person is named or nicknamed "Samuel Clemens" then that person too is Samuel Clemens though not the same Samuel Clemens who wrote 'Roughing It'.

Although "Samuel Clemens" and "Mark Twain" exist in language, as neither Samuel Clemens nor Mark Twain exist in the world, then it is not correct to to say that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens. — RussellA

What? Samuel Clemens, who is Mark Twain, exists as a deceased person. You're really utterly captiously quibbling about this? Wow. But, to accommodate even your most ridiculous quibbles, we'll use an example of a living person:

Ben Kingsley is Krishna Pandit Bhanji.

"Ben Kingsley" and "Krishna Pandit Bhanji" are two names of the same person.

"The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem, setting aside what "this string has five words" means, and treating it as a set of words such as "a b c d e", and ignoring any meaning that it may or may not have. — RussellA

I named the string itself. But then I also discussed meaning.

The Pentastring is "This string has words".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Open to doubt. — RussellA

Not reasonable doubt.

As before, my assumption has been that because "This string has five words" is in quotation marks, this means that "This string has five words" is an expression in language, and because the Pentastring is not in quotation marks, this means that the Pentastring is something that exists in the world.

The problem is, you are not saying that "this string has five words" is the name of the Pentastring, you are saying that "this string of five words" is the Pentastring. — RussellA

If I recall, a while ago you agreed that expressions are things in the world.

And you've not shown any problem. (1) Of course I am not saying that "This string has five words" is a name of the Pentastring. I stipulated that "The Pentasting" is a name of "This string has five words". (2) The Pentastring is "this string has five words". You've only adduced your own confusions in trying to fight that.

If A is B then B is A. If "this string has five words" is the Pentastring, then the Pentastring is "this string has five words". — RussellA

Indeed that is an instance of the symmetry of identity. But what's your point?

How can an expression in language be something in the world? — RussellA

If I recall, you said that it could. Moreover, you said "thing in the world" means [paraphrase:] "thing observed outside oneself". Well, I observe expressions outside myself. When someone says, "Today's soup special is split pea", I observe that there is the expression ""Today's soup special is split pea" and that it is outside myself.

How can "London" be a city? — RussellA

What? "London" is not a city. No one said it is.

This is not a side issue, as crucial to your argument that a self-referencing expression can be meaningful. — RussellA

It's not any kind of issue, since no one says that "London" is a city. No, actually, it is an issue. The issue is why you would come to such a bizarre conclusion that it is an issue.

"This string has five words" was named "The Pentastring", and "This string has five words" is the Pentastring. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My assumption is, as with the expression "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, that words in quotation marks refer to something in language and words not in quotation marks refer to something in the world.

No problem that "this string has five words" was named "the Pentastring"

I agree when you say:

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then how can "this string has five words" be the Pentastring?

You think Mark Twain was someone other Samuel Clemens? — TonesInDeepFreeze

My problem is:

That baby was named "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" and was Samuel Clemens — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sense and reference
"Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" both refer to the same thing in the world, although the names have a different senses, in that "Mark Twain" was an author whereas "Samuel Clemens" wasn't.

As regards reference, "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" are both referring to the same thing in the world. Let this something be both Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. In this event, Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

As regards sense, "Mark Twain" is referring to something in the world that is an author. Let this be Mark Twain. "Samuel Clemens " is referring to something in the world that isn't an author. Let this be Samuel Clemens. In this event, Mark Twain cannot be Samuel Clemens, as Mark Twain is an author and Samuel Clemens isn't

Then what would it mean to say that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens?

It would mean that names in language, such as "Mark Twain" have no sense, which would preclude any thoughts about him being an author and essayist, the father of American Literature and the greatest humourist the United States had produced.

Logical contradictions

That "Samuel Clemens" is Samuel Clemens would give rise to logical contradictions.

My assumption is, as with the expression "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, that words in quotation marks refer to something in language and words not in quotation marks refer to something in the world.

I agree that "Samuel Clemens" born in Hannibal 1835 is "Mark Twain" who wrote "Roughing It" in 1872.

To say that when something in the world is named "Samuel Clemens" then that something in the world becomes Samuel Clemens leads to problems of logic.

1) If person A, born in Hannibal, is named "Samuel Clemens" then that person becomes Samuel Clemens. If person B, born in New York is also named "Samuel Clemens" than that person also becomes Samuel Clemens. In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, in this case, that Samuel Clemens is Samuel Clemens. But this means that person A born in Hannibal is person B born in New York. Something is wrong.

2) A group of Modernists name a painting "good", meaning that the painting is good. A group of Post-Modernists name the same painting "bad", meaning that the same painting is bad. But this means that good is bad, which breaks logic.

3) Someone sees something and names it "a cat", and someone else sees the same thing and names it "a dog", this means that a cat is a dog, which is not logical.

4) There is something in Paris. It has been named "a tower" meaning that it is a tower. It has been named "an eyesore" meaning that it is an eyesore. It has also been named "beautiful", meaning that it is beautiful. Therefore the same thing is both an eyesore and beautiful. But this gives rise to a logical contradiction, as something that is an eyesore cannot be beautiful.

One could argue that whether something in the world is an eyesore or beautiful depends on the particular observer. Exactly. "Eyesores" and "beauty" exist in the mind of the observer, not the world.

Similarly, "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" exist in the mind not the world. If there were no minds, then neither "Mark Twain" nor "Samuel Clemens" would exist.

A name cannot determine what exists in the world, because if a name did determine what exists in the world, then logical contradictions would arise.

the question was about the truth of the words - this sentence has five words.

The question was not about the truth of the words - "this sentence has five words". — RussellA

"This sentence has five words" is the sentence in question. It is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words.

As regards "this sentence has five words", it all depends on what "this sentence" is referring to. — RussellA

"This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

If it is self-referential, then it is meaningless — RussellA

And we're full circle about the third time, as your support for your assertion comes down to you just reasserting the assertion.

__________

"this sentence" is referring to "this sentence". — RussellA

Wrong. And it's been pointed out to you that it's wrong. "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words". "This sentence" and "This sentence has five words" are not the same expression.

__________

"This string has five words" was named "The Pentastring", and "This string has five words" is the Pentastring.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem that "this string has five words" was named "the Pentastring"

I agree when you say:

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city)
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Then how can "this string has five words" be the Pentastring? — RussellA

Because I gave "this string has five words" the name "The Pentastring".

You might as well as how ask how Samuel Clemens can be Mark Twain. Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain because Samuel Clemens was given the name "Mark Twain". Or, suppose I give "All men are created equal" the name "JiffyJeff". Then "All men are created equal" is JiffyJeff.

__________

You think Mark Twain was someone other Samuel Clemens?
— TonesInDeepFreeze

My problem is:

That baby was named "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" and was Samuel Clemens
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Sense and reference
"Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" both refer to the same thing in the world, although the names have a different senses — RussellA

Right.

in that "Mark Twain" was an author whereas "Samuel Clemens" wasn't. — RussellA

"Mark Twain" was not an author!

"Mark Twain" is the name of an author.

Mark Twain was an author.

You still don't understand use-mention.

As regards reference, "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" are both referring to the same thing in the world. Let this something be both Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. In this event, Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens. — RussellA

Now you're back to sanity.

As regards sense, "Mark Twain" is referring — RussellA

You just conflated sense and reference. What even does "regards sense, X is referring" mean?

"Mark Twain" refers to Mark Twain.

"Mark Twain" refers to Samuel Clemens.

"Samuel Clemens" refers to Samuel Clemens.

"Samuel Clemens" refers to Mark Twain.

Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

The denotation of "Mark Twain" is the denotation of "Samuel Clemens".

"Mark Twain" is not "Samuel Clemens".

The sense of "Mark Twain" is not the sense of "Samuel Clemens".

Not only do you not understand quotation marks, use-mention or pronouns, you don't understand sense-reference.

Back to the point, contrary to your claim, it is not in doubt that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

That "Samuel Clemens" is Samuel Clemens would give rise to logical contradictions. — RussellA

Of course "Samuel Clemens" is not Samuel Clemens.

If person A, born in Hannibal, is named "Samuel Clemens" then that person becomes Samuel Clemens. If person B, born in New York is also named "Samuel Clemens" than that person also becomes Samuel Clemens. In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, in this case, that Samuel Clemens is Samuel Clemens. But this means that person A born in Hannibal is person B born in New York. Something is wrong. — RussellA

What is wrong is your failure to distinguish between formal logic and everyday usage.

In formal logic, given a particular interpretation of the language, a name refers to one and only one object. But in every day usage, sometimes names often have different referents. You didn't notice that there many thousands of people named "Jane Smith" and that all of them are Jane Smith, though they are different Jane Smiths?

A group of Modernists name a painting "good", meaning that the painting is good. A group of Post-Modernists name the same painting "bad", meaning that the same painting is bad. But this means that good is bad, which breaks logic. — RussellA

You did it again! You conflate a name with a predicate. You simply ignored that I already pointed out that error.

Naming a painting "Good" is very different from asserting that the predicate "is good" applies to the painting. If you make some squiggles and name that product "Good", of course it doesn't then follow that the squiggle drawing is good. If you named one of your posts "Reasoned Argument", of course it doesn't follow that your post is reasoned argument.

"Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" exist in the mind not the world. If there were no minds, then neither "Mark Twain" nor "Samuel Clemens" would exist. — RussellA

You equivocate. First you say that expressions do exist in the world. And you agreed that expressions exist in the world not just as particular inscriptions. Now you say they don't exist in the world.

How can "London" be a city?
— RussellA

What? "London" is not a city. No one said it is. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Still would like to know why you ask "How can "London" be a city?" when no one has said that "London" is a city.

Wait, I think I do know why. You still are confused about the distinction between use and mention.

"This sentence has five words" is the sentence in question. It is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Tackling your points one by one.

1) "This sentence has five words" is true IFF "this sentence has five words" has five words.

If this were the case, then it would follow that:

"New York is in France" is true IFF "New York is in France" has five words.

"This sentence has five words" is true IFF "this sentence has five words" has five words.

If this were the case, then it would follow that:

"New York is in France" is true IFF "New York is in France" has five words. — RussellA

That is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever heard.

"New York is in France" is true if and only if New York is in France.

"New York is in France" makes no mention of the number of words in "New York is in France".

From the fact that "This sentence has five words" is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words it does not follow that "New York is in France" is true if and only if "New York is in France" has five words!

You are bizarre. It is amusingly disturbing about you that you are willing to enter increasingly outlandish arguments after each of your previous confused and outlandish claims is defeated.

You haven't "tackled" anything. You've fallen on your behind, dizzy from spinning while chasing yourself in circles of your own confusions.

"This sentence has five words" is the sentence in question. It is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Problematic.

I agree that
1) "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
2) "New York is in France" is true IFF New York is in France
3) "This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words

The meanings of 1) and 2) are straightforward.
The problem with 3) is what exactly are "this sentence" and (this sentence) referring to?
For clarity, using brackets to indicate the world

For example, in a non-self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "New York is in France", and (this sentence) could be referring to (New York is in France).
The non self-referential case is meaningful.

However, in a self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "this sentence has five words", and (this sentence) could be referring to (this sentence has five words).
The self-referential case is meaningless.

The problem with the self-referential case, is that the content of a sentence contains no information about the form of the sentence.

The content of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that "this sentence has five words". The form of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

The content of a sentence can say nothing about the form of the sentence. It cannot self-refer.

As the sentence "New York is in France" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "New York is in Paris, the sentence "this sentence has five words" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "this sentence has five words"

I agree when you say:

"New York is in France" makes no mention of the number of words in "New York is in France". — TonesInDeepFreeze

From the same logic, "this sentence has five words" makes no mention of the number of words in "this sentence has five words". It makes no mention of the fact that "this sentence has five words" has five words.

Any similarity in expression is purely accidental. Content cannot refer to its own form.

You are again repeating your previously refuted arguments, as you skip right past the substance of the refutations. And then you argue yet again by mere assertion.

I agree that
1) "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
2) "New York is in France" is true IFF New York is in France
3) "This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words — RussellA

Regarding (3): You agree with yourself. You don't agree with me.

"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words" is ridiculous. You skip my previous response in which it is pointed out to you that you are ignoring the way pronouns work.

The problem with 3) is what exactly are "this sentence" and (this sentence) referring to? — RussellA

That's been answered. You skip my previous response.

in a non-self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "New York is in France" — RussellA

In "This sentence has five words", obviously "This sentence" does not refer to "New York is in France".

It is pointless for you to even offer that non-possibility.

That's been mentioned. You skip my previous response.

(this sentence) could be referring to (New York is in France).
The non self-referential case is meaningful. — RussellA

Maybe what you mean is that "This sentence" refers to the claim that New York is in France.

Again, it doesn't.

It is pointless for you to even offer that non-possibility.

in a self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "this sentence has five words", and (this sentence) could be referring to (this sentence has five words). The self-referential case is meaningless. — RussellA

"This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

The problem with the self-referential case, is that the content of a sentence contains no information about the form of the sentence.

The content of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that "this sentence has five words". The form of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words. — RussellA

The "content" of "This sentence has five words" is the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words.

The "form" of "This sentence has five words" is that "This sentence has five words" is the string that is the sequence of the five words "this", "sentence", "has", "five" and "words".

The content of a sentence can say nothing about the form of the sentence. It cannot self-refer. — RussellA

That's argument by mere assertion.

The "content" of "This sentence has five words" is the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words. And having five words is an aspect of the form of "This sentence has five words".

As the sentence "New York is in France" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "New York is in Paris, the sentence "this sentence has five words" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "this sentence has five words" — RussellA

You repeat that bizarre and stupid analogy again!

I agree when you say:

"New York is in France" makes no mention of the number of words in "New York is in France".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

From the same logic, "this sentence has five words" makes no mention of the number of words in "this sentence has five words". It makes no mention of the fact that "this sentence has five words" has five words. — RussellA

"This sentence" refers to the sentence "This sentence has five words" and makes the claim that that sentence has five words.

Any similarity in expression is purely accidental. — RussellA

Similarity between what and what? And what is meant by "accidental" in this context?

Content cannot refer to its own form. — RussellA

Again, argument by mere assertion. And not even coherent. The content does not refer. The content is the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words. That claim does not refer. With the sentence "Jack is tall", the sentence makes the claim that Jack is tall. What refers are the noun phrase "Jack", which refers to Jack, and the predicate "is tall", which refers to the property of being tall. With the sentence "This sentence has five words", the sentence makes the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words. What refers is the noun phrase "This sentence", which refers to "This sentence has five words", and the predicate "has five words", which refers to the property of having five words.

@RussellA proffers the possibility that:

"This sentence has five words" is true if and only if this sentence has five words.

But that is wrong and stupid. It is wrong and stupid as he is not distinguishing the two different contexts of 'this'.

In the first instance "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

In the second instance, "this sentence" refers to ""This sentence has five words" is true if and only if this sentence has five words."

It is foolishness to ignore that distinction.

"This guy is in love with Lani" is true if and only if Herb is in love with Lani.

It is not the case that "This guy is in love with Lani" is true if and only if this guy is in love with Lani.

In the first instance "This guy" refers to Herb.

In the second instance "this guy" refers to TonesInDeepFreeze.

Herb is in love with Lani. TonesInDeepFreeze is not in love with Lani.


"This sentence has five words" has five words.

""This sentence has five words" has five words" does not have five words. (where "has five words" is meant as "has exactly five words")

/

Suppose there is a billboard out on Highway 61 in Bobsville, Arizona that says:

This billboard has five words.

"This billboard" refers to the billboard out on Highway 61 in Bobsville, Arizona. That is, "This billboard" refers to itself.

"This billboard has five words" is true if and only if the billboard out on Highway 61 in Bobsville, Arizona has five words.


"The Pentastring" refers to "This string has five words".

The Pentastring is "This string has five words".

The Pentastring is true if and only if "This string has five words" has five words.

The Pentastring is true if and only if "This string has five words" is true. (where "this string" refers to the string "This string has five words")


"Einstein's famous formula" refers to "E=MC^2".

Einstein's famous formula is "E=MC^2".

Einstein's formula is true if and only if E=MC^2.

Einstein's formula is true if and only if "E=MC^2" is true.


"JiffyJeff" refers to "All men are created equal".

JiffyJeff is "All men are created equal".

JiffyJeff is true if and only if all men are created equal.

JiffyJeff is true if and only if "All men are created equal" is true.


"Herb'sVow" refers to "This guy is in love with Lani".

Herb'sVow is "This guy is in love with Lani".

Herb'sVow is true if and only if Herb is in love with Lani.

Herb'sVow is true if and only if "This guy is in love with Lani" is true. (where "this guy" refers to Herb)


"BobsvilleMessage" refers to "This billboard has five words".

BobsvilleMessage is "This billboard has five words".

BobsvilleMessage is true if and only if the billboard out on Highway 61 in Bobsville, Arizona has five words.

BobsvilleMessage is true if and only if "This billboard has five words" is true. (where "this billboard" refers to the billboard out on Highway 61 in Bobsville, Arizona)

It is not the case that "This billboard has five words" is true if and only if this billboard has five words. Especially since the second instance of "this billboard" does not even properly refer.

Prediction: @RussellA will reply by (1) making yet another bizarrely false and stupid extension of his already existing bizarrely false and stupid arguments and by (2) finally resting yet again on his argument by mere assertion that self-referring expressions are meaningless.

The song that is titled "Your Song" has the lyric:

This is the song. It may be quite simple.

"This" refers to the song itself, which is the song that is titled "Your Song". "It" refers to the song itself, which is the song that is titled "Your Song".

Within the song, there is reference to the song. It seems to me that it is meaningful when the song says of itself that it may be quite simple.

"It may be quite simple" is true if and only if the song itself (which is titled "Your Song") may be quite simple.

Consider this botched version:

"It may be quite simple" is true if and only if it may be quite simple.

The first instance of "it" refers to the song.

The second instance of "it" refers to the sentence "It may be quite simple".

But the song is not the sentence "It may be quite simple".

We cannot sensibly ignore the context of pronouns as @RussellA so ignorantly does.

A neat review:

@RussellA offers three options for "This string has five words":

(1) "This string" refers to "This string".

(2) "This string" refers to some other unrelated string such as "The cat is black".

(3) "This string" refers to "This string has five words".

Each one:

(1) is false. "This string" doesn't refer to the string "This string" but rather to the string "This string has five words", which is the string that has five words.

(2) is false and ridiculous.

(3) is true. But he claims that then "This string has five words" is meaningless due to self-reference. But why does self-reference make it meaningless? His answer is that self-reference is meaningless because the would-be referrer doesn't refer to something in the world. But why is a string not something in the world? His answer is that because strings are in the mind not outside the mind. But then not just self-referring strings are in the mind not in the world. (Moreover, he agrees that strings are not mere inscriptions but that the same string may have more than one inscription.) So if strings are not things in the world, then the string "Caesar was a Roman emperor" is not in the world. So ""Caesar was a Roman emperor" has five words" must also be meaningless. But then his default is to merely reassert that it is self-referring strings that are meaningless. And around in circles it goes, back to him reasserting his three options.

Meanwhile, the Pentastring argument has not been refuted.

With the sentence "Jack is tall", the sentence makes the claim that Jack is tall...................With the sentence "This sentence has five words", the sentence makes the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The above is a key point of disagreement

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
"Jack is tall" is true IFF Jack is tall
"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words

It is not the case that "this sentence has five words" is true IFF "this sentence has five words" has five words

It is true that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words, but this truth is independent of any meanings of the words within the sentence.

The meanings of the words within the sentence "this sentence has five words" play no part in the truth that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

The sentence "a b c d e" has five words, regardless of any meaning of the words "a b c d e".

The meanings of the words "a b c d e" play no part in the fact that the sentence "a b c d e" has five words

Similarly, the meanings of the words "this sentence has five words" play no part in the fact that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

As "Jack is tall" makes the claim that Jack is tall, then "this sentence has five words" makes the claim that this sentence has five words. It doesn't make the claim that "this sentence has five words" has five words.

Otherwise, the sentence "this sentence has fifty words" would be making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

Otherwise, the sentence "this sentence has fifty words" would be making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words. — RussellA

Yes? And the sentence would be false.

Yes? And the sentence would be false. — Michael

As regards the sentence "this sentence has fifty words" making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words:

No, it wouldn't be false, it would be meaningless, because self-referential.

"Snow is white" is making the claim that "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

"Jack is tall" is making the claim that "Jack is tall" is true IFF Jack is tall

"This sentence has fifty words" is making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" is true IFF this sentence has fifty words.
In language is "this sentence has fifty words".
In the world is a set of words.
If in the world there is a set of fifty words, then "this sentence has fifty words" is true
If in the world is a set of words of which there are not fifty, then "this sentence has fifty words" is not true.
There is no problem here, as meaningful.

The problem arrives when "this sentence has fifty words" is making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" is true IFF "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

This is a problem of self-reference, because "this sentence has fifty words" is referring to itself.

For example, consider "unicorns are happy" is true IFF unicorns are happy. This is meaningful. Then consider "unicorns are happy" is true IFF "unicorns are happy". This is a tautology, an example of the law of identity where a thing is identical with itself.

This is why self-reference leads to a paradox, and why expressions that self-refer are meaningless.

"This sentence has fifty words" can meaningfully refer to a sentence having fifty words, but it cannot meaningfully refer to itself.

1. This sentence contains five words
2. This sentence contains fifty words

(1) is true and (2) is false. It's not complicated. I don't understand the problem you have.

"Jack is tall" is making the claim that "Jack is tall" is true IFF Jack is tall — RussellA

It's not. Here are two propositions:

1. It is raining
2. "it is raining" is true iff it is raining

(1) and (2) do not mean the same thing. (1) is true iff it is raining but (2) is true even if it isn't raining.

1. This sentence contains five words.
2. This sentence contains fifty words.
(1) is true and (2) is false. It's not complicated. I don't understand the problem you have. — Michael

The problem is, in 2) for example, what exactly is "this sentence" referring to?

If "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", then this is a case of self-reference, and being a case of self-reference is meaningless.

In that event, this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words.

But we have been told that "this sentence" refers to "this sentence contains fifty words"

We therefore know that this sentence, ie the sentence "ie, the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words", contains fifty words.

But we have been told that "this sentence" refers to "this sentence contains fifty words"

Ad infinitum.

That is my problem.
===============================================================================

1. It is raining.
2. "it is raining" is true iff it is raining.
(1) and (2) do not mean the same thing. (1) is true iff it is raining but (2) is true even if it isn't raining. — Michael

Agree, 1) and 2) don't mean the same thing.

1) It is raining is true IFF it is raining. The word "true" is redundant. If it is raining then it is raining. This is an example of the law of identity where something is equal to itself.

2) "It is raining" is true IFF it is raining. This is meaningful.

If "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", then this is a case of self-reference, and being a case of self-reference is meaningless. — RussellA

No it’s not.

In that event, this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words. — RussellA

No it doesn’t. It contains five words and so is false.

"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words — RussellA

You should stop right there. You continue to blatantly assert the same confusion. You should go back and actually read the explanation that has been given you about this five times already.

For about the fifth time you have skipped the point that you are not taking into account that pronouns are contextual. So, again I suggest that you consider:

"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words.

The first occurrence of "This sentence" refers to the sentence "This sentence has five words"; but the second occurrence of "this sentence" refers to the sentence ""This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words".

"This sentence has five words" has five words.

"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words" does not have five words.

Your argument that blatantly ignores the context of pronouns is blatantly fallacious.

Consider:

"This guy is in love with Lani" is true if and only if this guy is in love with Lani.

The first occurrence of "This guy" refers to Herb Alpert; but the second occurrence of "this guy" refers to TonesInDeepFreeze.

Herb Alpert is in love with Lani. TonesInDeepFreeze is not in love with Lani.

/

That you blatantly skip this point over and over is intellectual dishonesty.

/

The more you are corrected on each point, the more you continue to propagate both old and new speciousness.

No it’s not. — Michael

That's why there is a SEP article on the Liar Paradox.
===============================================================================

No it doesn’t. It contains five words and so is false. — Michael

I agree that my statement was false. But is was meaningful, unlike the Liar Paradox, where a part of language refers to itself.

That you blatantly skip this point over and over is intellectual dishonesty. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Au revoir.

That's why there is a SEP article on the Liar Paradox. — RussellA

But you weren't talking about the liar paradox. You were talking about the sentences "this sentence contains five words" and "this sentence contains fifty words". These two sentences are meaningful, with the first being true and the second being false.

But you weren't talking about the liar paradox. You were talking about the sentences "this sentence contains five words" and "this sentence contains fifty words". These two sentences are meaningful, with the first being true and the second being false. — Michael

You say that the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is false.

But you don't know that. It all depends on which sentence "this sentence" is referring to.

In the same way, we don't know whether the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people" is true or false, if we don't know which ferry is being referred to.

Similarly, we don't know whether the sentence "this idea contains fifty thoughts" is true or false, if we don't know which idea is being referred to.

If "this sentence" is referring to the sentence "The Eiffel Tower is a lattice tower on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France. It is named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, whose company designed and built the tower from 1887 to 1889. Nicknamed "La dame de fer", it was constructed as the centrepiece of the 1889 World's Fair" then this sentence does have fifty words.

If "this sentence" is referring to the sentence "The Eiffel Tower is a lattice tower" then this sentence doesn't have fifty words.

If "this sentence" is referring to itself, ie, "this sentence contains fifty words", then both the SEP and IEP discuss the problems of self-referential expressions.

The SEP article on the Liar Paradox starts with the sentence "The first sentence in this essay is a lie"

The IEP article Liar Paradox talks about "this sentence is a lie"

But there is insufficient information within the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" to know which sentence "this sentence" is referring to.

As we don't know which sentence "this sentence" is referring to, we cannot know whether the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is true, false or meaningless.

You say that the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is false.

But you don't know that. — RussellA

I do know that. It refers to itself, it contains five words, and so it doesn’t contain fifty words.

If "this sentence" is referring to itself, ie, "this sentence contains fifty words", then both the SEP and IEP discuss the problems of self-referential expressions.

The SEP article on the Liar Paradox starts with the sentence "The first sentence in this essay is a lie"

The IEP article Liar Paradox talks about "this sentence is a lie" — RussellA

They are discussing the liar paradox. We are not discussing the liar paradox. We are discussing the sentences "this sentence contains five words" and "this sentence contains fifty words".

From the SEP article on self-reference:

... self-reference is not a sufficient condition for paradoxicality. The truth-teller sentence “This sentence is true” is not paradoxical, and neither is the sentence “This sentence contains four words” (it is false, though).

there is insufficient information [...] to know which sentence "this sentence" is referring to — RussellA

Most people think otherwise, they know exactly what sentence it is referring to.

The syntagma 'this sentence' in 'This sentence has fifty words' refers to 'This sentence has fifty words'. Therefore it is false.

It is quite possible you and Tones went through this exact point, but honestly if I read through all 8 pages I might develop dementia before I even hit middle age.

It is quite possible you and Tones went through this exact point, but honestly if I read through all 8 pages I might develop dementia before I even hit middle age. — Lionino

At least you have middle age to look forward to.