Which, based on the description above, it is not. This, unfortunately, would use some logic of language chat, which I have very little interest in.

Suffice it to say, it wants to say something it can't, and so contains no meaning.

So you assert.

Moreover, I don't know what you mean by a sentence "wanting" to say something.

Meanwhile, a counterargument has been given, and that counterargument has not been refuted.

LOL, well fair enough!

how do you avoid the problem of infinite recursion in a self-referential sentence? — RussellA

No argument has been sustained that there is such a problem.

"This sentence contains five words". — RussellA

For sake of continuity with the thread, I'll use:

This sentence has five words.

Non self-referential case
Let "this sentence" refer to the sentence "this sentence contains five words" — RussellA

Yes, please let it, since "This sentence" does refer to the sentence "this sentence has five words".

Then, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words". This is meaningful. — RussellA

Meaningful and false, since (1) "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence has five word", has five words" falsely claims that "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence has five word", has five words" is "this sentence has five words" and (2) "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence has five word", has five words" has twelve words not five.

the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is not the same sentence as "this sentence contains five words", even though the wording is identical. These are two completely different sentences. — RussellA

Wrong. "This sentence has five words" is "This sentence has five words". They are the same linguistic object. As RussellA himself says, the wording is identical. So they are the same sentence.

RussellA has reduced himself to explicitly contradicting the law of identity.

the truth of the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is independent of the truth of the sentence "this sentence contains five words". — RussellA

Since "this sentence has five words" is "this sentence has five words", the truth of "this sentence has five words" cannot possibly be independent of the truth of "this sentence has five words".

For any sentence S: S is true if and only if S is true; and S is false if and only if S is false.

RussellA has reduced himself to explicitly contradicting the the principle "P if and only if P".

Self-referential case
In the self-referential case, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words".
But we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence contains five words". — RussellA

What does the first occurrence of "this sentence" refer to in the sentence immediately above?

Two choices:

(a) "this sentence" refers to "we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence has five words""

And (a) is false, since we do not know that "we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence has five words"" is the sentence "this sentence has five words"; but rather, we know that it is not the case that "We know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence has five words"" is "this sentence has five words".

(b) "this sentence" refers to "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", has five words".

And (b) is false, since we do not know that "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", has five words" is "this sentence has five words"; but rather we know that it is not the case that "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words" is "this sentence has five words".

Therefore, "this sentence, the sentence "the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words", contains five words".
Ad infinitum. Infinite recursion. Therefore meaningless. — RussellA

Non sequitur.

It is the case that:

"This sentence has five words" is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words. (So, "This sentence has five words" is true.)

""This sentence has five words" is true" if and only if ""This sentence has five words" is true" is true. (So, ""This sentence has five words" is true" is true.)

ad infinitum - the value is true

But also:

"Florida is a state" is true if and only if Florida is a state. (So, "Florida is a state" is true.)

""Florida is a state" is true" is true if and only if ""Florida is a state" is true" is true.

ad infinitum - the value is true

That is different from the liar paradox:

"This sentence is false" is true if and only if "This sentence is false" is false, so "this sentence if false" is true.

""This sentence is false" is true" is true if and only if ""This sentence is false" is true" is true, so "this sentence is false" is false.

ad infinitum - the value alternates between true and false

These points - (a) it is not just self-referential sentences that provide "ad infinitum" and (b) mere self-reference doesn't provide paradox but rather the combination of self-reference and negation - have been pointed out to RusellA probably a half dozen times already

Note that in the self-referential case, the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is the same sentence. — RussellA

Same sentence as what?

If "this sentence contains five words" is referring to itself, then "this sentence contains five words" means that "this sentence contains five words". — RussellA

"This sentence" refers to "this sentence has five words". "This sentence" refers to the sentence in which "this sentence" is the noun. That is the nature of the self-reference in that case.

In other words, "X" means "X". — RussellA

"X" is true if and only if X.

But pronouns are contextual, so the above schema needs adjustment to the context of a pronoun's use.

So this does not work:

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

The first occurrence of "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

The second occurrence of "this sentence" refers to ""This sentence has five words" is true if and only if this sentence has five words".

Two ways to handle the context of pronouns:

(1) "This sentence has five words" is true if and only if the referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence has five words" has five words. That reduces to:

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

(2) Let "The Pentastring" refer to "This sentence has five words". That is, "The Pentastring" is the referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence has five words". That is, the Pentastring is "This sentence has five words".

"This sentence has five words" is true if and only if the Pentastring has five words. That reduces to:

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

RussellA keeps avoiding that pronouns are contextual. His central argument is based on blithely ignoring that pronouns need to be handled with context in mind.

the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. — RussellA

Indeed. So RussellA is ridiculous when he blatantly contradicts the law of identity when he says that "This sentence has five words" is not "This sentence has five words".

I agree that "X" means "X" — RussellA

RussellA agrees with whom, other than himself, about that?

"X" is "X". The meaning of "X" is not "X".

how can "X" be described as a meaningful sentence? — RussellA

Which "X"?

It has been shown about 100 times already the sense in which "This sentence has five words" is meaningful and true. There may be a reasonable argument that "This sentence has five words" is not meaningful, but RussellA has not produced such a reasonable argument. Confused and ignorant formulations, non sequitur, and avoidance of exact rebuttal is not reasonable argument.

I totally agree that there is nothing problematic with the sentence "this sentence contains five words", and can indeed be a meaningful sentence.

As long as "this sentence contains five words" is not referring to itself. — RussellA

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

To say that "a horse is a horse" is true is saying no more than "a horse is a horse".

To say that "this sentence contains fifty words" is true is saying no more than "this sentence contains fifty words".

To say that "x" is true is saying no more than "x". — RussellA

Truth only enters when self-reference disappears — RussellA

RussellA pinions his claiims about his subject on Tarski's schema, but he gets even that wrong! (See a thread many months ago about Tarski and the correspondence theory. RussellA got it quite wrong there too and proceeded post after post with illogical arguments.)

The following is not an instance of the schema:

"This sentence has fifty words" is true if and only if "This sentence has fifty words".

That doesn't even make sense, since what occurs after the biconditional is not even a propostion but rather is a quote of a proposition.

And again, when we use pronouns that are contextual, the schema needs adjustment:

"This sentence has fifty words" is true if and only if the referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

Since the referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence has fifty words" is "This sentence has fifty words", we have:

"This sentence has fifty words" is true if and only if "This sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

Truth only enters when self-reference disappears — RussellA

RussellA will keep asserting that over and over and over, no matter how many times he is shown that his arguments are both built on false premises and are illogical.

how can any one say that "this sentence contains five words" is true if no one knows which sentence is being referred to? — RussellA

We infer that "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words" by observing that "This sentence" occurs within "This sentence has five words" and "This sentence has five words" is the only sentence spoken or displayed in the context. So the notion of "This sentence" referring to some other arbitrary sentence such as "The cat is black" is itself a gratuitously arbitrary notion.

When I hold an apple in my hand and say "this apple", unless there is additional context, we infer that "this apple" refers to the apple in my hand. When we have "This sentence is five words" as the only sentence at hand, we infer that "this sentence" refers to that sentence which is at hand, which is "This sentence has five words".

Moreover, we could just as well stipulate that "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words". Given that stipulation, the question still is whether "This sentences has five words" is meaningful.

It is not correct to say that the sentence "this house is very tall" is true because it contains five words.
Similarly, it is not correct to say that the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true because it contains five words. — RussellA

What a nutty analogy!

"This house is tall" doesn't mention a number of words.

"This sentence has five word" does mention a number of words.

"This house is very tall" is true IFF this house is very tall, not because the sentence "this house is very tall" contains five words.

Similarly, "this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words, not because the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words. — RussellA

RussellA will just not quit ignoring that pronouns have context.

The subjective content of the sentence "this sentence contains five words" cannot determine the objective form of itself, ie, that it contains five words. — RussellA

For example, no one claims that saying "This sentence has ten words" makes it that case that "This sentence has ten words" has ten words.

But "This sentence has five words" is true since "This sentence has five words" has five words.

RussellA presents yet another very silly and illogical argument.

All I'm trying to say is that an expression that self-refers cannot be grounded in the world, and if not grounded in the world cannot have a truth value. — RussellA

We've been over the "grounded" argument about a dozen times already.

Whatever RusellA's definition of 'grounded' is, if sentences such as "The cat is black" are in the world, then RussellA must show why sentences such as "This sentence has five words" are not in the world. But each of his arguments for that claim have been refuted.

"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF this sentence contains fifty words. — RussellA

About the 100th instance of RussellA ignoring that pronouns are contextual.

The word "truth" in the following would be redundant:
"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF "this sentence contains fifty words" — RussellA

"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF "this sentence contains fifty words"

That's not even coherent. Why does RussellA even mention it?

This is coherent:

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

"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF this sentence contains fifty words. — RussellA

Oops, he did it again!

In the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people", we don't normally think that "this ferry" is referring to the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people". We normally think that it is referring to a ferry in the world.

So why would we think that "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words". It seems more likely that "this sentence" is referring to another sentence. — RussellA

That is just so very nuts!

In "This ferry contains fifty people" we don't think this "this ferry" refers to the sentence "this very contains fifty people" since we infer that "this ferry" refers to a ferry and not to a sentence!

And why would it be more likely that "This sentence" in "This sentence has five words" refers to some other sentence not mentioned, not implied, not suggested, not even hinted at? Rather, we infer that "This sentence" refers to the sentence that is present, at hand, and in which "This sentence" itself occurs!

Moreover, we may just as well stipulate that "This sentence" refers to the sentence in which it occurs, which happens to be the only sentence around at the time.

Or we can use a name of "This sentence has five words" such as "The Pentastring".

"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)" — Michael

That is an important point. RussellA should not resort to trying to change the context from "This sentence has five words" to "This sentence is false".

if I said "this sentence contains fifty words", the listener may infer that I meant that this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words. — RussellA

Close but still not right, as it is still not using pronouns correctly. It should be:

We infer that "This sentence has fifty words" is true if and only if "This sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

I agree that if the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean that this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words, then this is not paradoxical and is false. — RussellA

Close but still not right, as it is still not using pronouns correctly. It should be:

We infer that "this sentence has fifty words" is true if and only if "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words, so "this sentence has fifty words" is not paradoxical and is false.

However, we are not discussing what the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean, we are discussing what it literally means. — RussellA

We infer what it literally means. We infer by context that "this sentence" refers to "this sentence has fifty words", so, given the context, we infer that "this sentence has fifty words" literally means that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

If that is not enough, then ANY use of pronouns would disallow literal meaning.

But we don't disallow literal meaning with use of pronouns. "This apple is red". In context, it literally means that the apple that is in my hand that I am looking at is red.

We infer what it literally means. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Which is incorrect, in the structure of the sentence. As has been pointed out.

That is an important point. RussellA should not resort to trying to change the context from "This sentence has five words" to "This sentence is false". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Teh self-reference remains in your reading, though. So, whether or not the sentence is referring literally 'to itself' (this should answer your query about a sentence wanting to say something above) or to "what it refers to" is not actually "up to you". You can't simply read it in a way which is false, but meaningful by adding meaning to it, without sufficient reason.

On it's face, it is plainly meaningless. I'm not sure you're actually ascertaining what this amounts to because it seems all you're wanting to do is have the sentence refer to itself. If it does, then fine, but RussellA has already covered that and your response does nothing for it.

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. — RussellA

So what? "This sentence" in "This sentence is false" is not 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" !!!

And "This apple" in "This apple is red" is not referring to the sentence "Walruses are cute" or the sentence "The Grand Canyon is a banana" or 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" !!!

RussellA needs to climb down from the pole of ridiculous arguments he's sitting on!

It seems you think Wittgenstein has a point, yes?

Edit: It would have been much better for me to mention paraconsistency here. The sentence is not paradoxical, but a lot of the ways in which this is the case, Russell has covered.

So, whether or not the sentence is referring literally 'to itself' (this should answer your query about a sentence wanting to say something above) — AmadeusD

I haven't said the sentence refers to itself. I said that "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words". The noun phrase "This sentence" is the referrer.

You can't simply read it in a way which is false, but meaningful by adding meaning to it, without sufficient reason. — AmadeusD

See my arguments that address that.

On it's face, it is plainly meaningless. — AmadeusD

You merely reassert your assertion.

Meanwhile, it seems to me to be meaningful, as it seems meaningful to others too. And I've explicated its meaning. And no argument that is not based on false premises and illogic has been given so far in this thread that it is not meaningful.

it seems all you're wanting to do is have the sentence refer to itself — AmadeusD

I said about five times: RussellA claims that self-referential sentences are not meaningful. The ball is in his court to support that claim. Meanwhile, "This sentence has five words" does seem to me to be meaningful, though I am open to a logical argument that it is not. And, meanwhile, I've given an argument that it is meaningful and that argument has not been disputed other than by false premises and illogic.

RussellA's arguments have been a catalog of ignorance and non sequitur, including: Not understanding the difference between nouns and predicates, not understanding pronouns, ridiculously inapt analogies, contradicting the law of identity, contradicting the reflexivity of the material biconditional, various red herrings, evading rebuttals, and a lot more. And I've given detailed and exact explication of his errors.

I haven't opined on Wittgenstein.

The sentence is not paradoxical, but a lot of the ways in which this is the case, Russell has covered. — AmadeusD

Ways in what is the case? Ways in which "This sentence has five words" is not paradoxical? RussellA's claim is that "This sentence has five words" is meaningless if "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words". All of his arguments for that claim have been shown to be based on false premises and illogic, some of them even blatantly ludicrous.

As I said from the start, I am open to a finding that "This sentence has five words" is not meaningful, if there is a good argument that it's not. But as RussellA's arguments have been an insult to logic and intelligence, I find myself starting to feel more and more that "This sentence has five words" is indeed meaningful.

But that's not fair to the inquiry, since the fact that one dialectically incompetent poster can't come up with a good argument for his claim should not be taken to entail that no one can.

Is that a joke? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. Asserting irreflexivity of reference (in general, or in cases like "this sentence has... etc") seems as confused and cranky as asserting irreflexivity of shaving.

Was my point.

Wrong. "This sentence has five words" is "This sentence has five words". They are the same linguistic object. As RussellA himself says, the wording is identical. So they are the same sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Picking up on just one of your 33 comments:

Mary in 1975 in New York said "This sentence has five words".
Rafael in 1923 in Rio de Janeiro said "This sentence has five words"

Just because the wording is identical, this doesn't mean that they are the same sentence, the same linguistic object. In part, because we don't know what sentence they are referring to.

However, I don't want to waste any more of your time if my arguments are dialectically incompetent.

But that's not fair to the inquiry, since the fact that one dialectically incompetent poster can't come up with a good argument for his claim should not be taken to entail that no one can. — TonesInDeepFreeze

To be fair, here's Quine:

In an effort to clear up this antinomy it has been protested that the phrase `This sentence', so used, refers to nothing. [Trolls explode with glee.] This is claimed on the ground that you cannot get rid of the phrase by supplying a sentence that is referred to. For what sentence does the phrase refer to? The sentence 'This sentence is false'. If, accordingly, we supplant the phrase `This sentence' by a quotation of the sentence referred to, we get: ``This sentence is false' is false'. But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox. — Quine, The Ways of Paradox

But... the inside sentence still so engenders? Because, indeed,

what sentence does the phrase refer to? The sentence 'This sentence is false'.

So I'm not quite sure what kind of objection is being sustained? If any. And who had raised it, and where?

here's Quine — bongo fury

The professor looks at a Geography student's essay and says to the student: this sentence is false.
The student had written "Paris is in Germany".
As Quine might say, there is no paradox with the professor saying "Paris is in Germany" is false.

The professor looks at a Philosophy student's essay and says to the student: this sentence is false.
The student had written "this sentence is false", referring to the sentence "Quine was born in 1908".
As Quine says, in this situation, there's no paradox with "this sentence is false" is false
There's no paradox because, as Quine says, "this sentence is false" is referring to something other than itself.

But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox. Quine

The paradox arises when "this sentence is false" is not referring to something other than itself. IE, when it is self-referential.

Mary in 1975 in New York said "This sentence has five words".
Rafael in 1923 in Rio de Janeiro said "This sentence has five words"

Just because the wording is identical, this doesn't mean that they are the same sentence, the same linguistic object. In part, because we don't know what sentence they are referring to. — RussellA

They are both referring to the sentence "This sentence has five words".

Mary is not referring to some random, unrelated sentence that is not even present in the context such as "The Eiffel Tower is a great tourist attraction". Rafael is not referring to some random, unrelated sentence that is not even present in the context such as "Helium is good for party balloons".

(But at least it's good to see that RussellA has, at least apparently, dropped his line of argument that "This sentence" could refer to something that's not even a sentence!)

Moreover, we can stipulate what sentence is referred to. I stipulate that when I write:

This sentence has five words

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

Moreover, we can formulate without the pronoun 'this':

Let "The Pentastring" refer to "This sentence has five words". The Pentastring has five words, since the Pentastring is "This sentence has five words" and "This sentence has five words" has five words.

"The Pentastring has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words.

"This sentence has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words.

Moreover, we can formulate this way:

(1) This sentence has five words.

"The sentence listed above as (1) has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words.

"This sentence has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words.

If we took advice from RussellA, then anytime someone used the pronoun 'this', we might as well think they are referring to any random, unrelated thing that is is not even present in context. When I say "This apple is red" while holding an apple in my hand and looking at the apple and pointing at it, we might as well think that "this apple" refers to the Eiffel Tower or the atomic element helium or anything else.

That RussellA is willing to make such a ludicrous argument shows that he's willing to abandon the least shred of reason.

The professor looks at a Geography student's essay and says to the student: this sentence is false.
The student had written "Paris is in Germany". — RussellA

And that is not analogous to "This sentence is false" in the context of this discussion.

Again, there is no other sentence at issue. And one may stipulate what "This sentence" refers to.

The professor may stipulate that, in that context, "This sentence" refers to "Paris is in Germany". And I may stipulate that in the context of my post, "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

As well as, when the professor is pointing at "Paris is in Germany" on the paper, it is reasonable to infer that "This sentence" refers to "Paris is in Germany", while, when I write "This sentence has five words" in a post, with no other sentence around that would be a plausible candidate to be the referent of "This sentence", and I adduce the sentence for the very purpose of discussion about self-reference, then not only is it not reasonable to infer that "This sentence" refers to "The Eiffel tower is a racoon" but it is plainly ludicrous even to argue that that might be what "This sentence" refers to. Even more ludicrous to argue, as RussellA did a while ago, that "This sentence" might be referring to something that is not even a sentence, not even a linguistic object of any kind, but some other kind of very different thing.

The paradox arises when "this sentence is false" is not referring to something other than itself. IE, when it is self-referential. — RussellA

RussellA keeps arguing by mere assertion over and over and over. The paradox of "This sentence is false" involves both "This sentence" referring to "This sentence is false" and the fact that the sentence says specifically that it is false. One cannot thereby infer that "This sentence has five words" is meaningless on the basis that "This sentence is false" is paradoxical or even, for sake of argument, that it is meaningless.

RussellA has made a non sequitur. And to still defend his non sequitur, he resorts to even the most ludicrous arguments, including ignoring not distinguishing nouns from adjectives, ignoring how pronouns work, contradicting the law of identity, contradicting the reflexiveness of the material conditional, arguing that we can't infer what is referred to with pronouns, and more, and over and over and over he then just keeps coming back to argument by mere assertion. On what basis is it claimes "This sentence has five words" not meaningful? Eventually, his argument will involve "grounding" and "the world", along with the many calls to ludicrousness, but then when it's shown that those arguments fail, he'll come back to merely asserting that such sentences are not meaningful.

I can only laugh.

There's no paradox because, as Quine says, "this sentence is false" is referring to something other than itself. — RussellA

No. Quine doesn't say that, and he doesn't say anyone else has said that.

Are you sure?



It's always possible I am misunderstanding, but this entire piece

seems to speak to Quine essentially saying "This isn't a problem, because you can't shoehorn meaning in here for it to contradict (as to itself)"

I can only laugh — AmadeusD

and not read and reason.

If you feel the need to respond, directly, in this way, I can only laugh harder.