It's not me it's reality.

I don't care about your opinion.
The creepy thing is the so called culture of the US.

Well I don't want to explain I think it is not too hard to see the point.

I don't have any studies to back this up. I think this is what they teach at the medicore universities in my shitty country. (In Evolutionary psychology) And I think this is common sense. Because if a female has a child that has major biological consequences. Also this takes at least 9 months from the life of the female. Therefore they have to focus on quality. Males can have as many children as they want without any biological consequences.

For the other question. One thing you could do is to stop propagating the imaginary overmasculin male ubermensch stereotype in the media and start propagating other values people have.

I am shocked that my post have been deleted. I will try to form my thoughts in a different way so nobody gets offended.
We know that females are evolutionarily programmed to attract males in order to reproduce (females choose one male). Males are programmed to reproduce with as many females as possible to diversify their gene pool. Humans and a lot of other species have this tendency.
In today's society women use their arsenal to attract men. This arsenal consists of dressing or specific acts. The same can be told about men but while men are programmed to 'accept' every women; women usually will only accept a small % of the male population. This can lead to a lot of sexual frustration in society because a lot of males will be ignored meanwhile their senses excited by women. So as a member of the group of the ignored males I really need somebody to defend my rights as I get offended every time I see a beautiful seductive woman ignoring and despising me.

As I am free to express my opinion and I did not inted to offend anybody I ask you not to delete my post again.

I know that it is raining.
I also know that if it is raining then Bill is not on the beach.
So I know that Bill is not on the beach.

In this case epistemic closure means some kind of rationality.

But what if there is a crazy person somewhere who believes every sentence. His believe system is epistemically closed but this does not mean his believes are certain.

I get it now, thanks!

I don't see why (1. or 2. or 3.) have to be almost certainly true. Can you explain it in a few words?

We use the expression self-reference differently. When I say self-reference I mean (as I have explained earlier) that the definiens can not contain the definiendum. And I am not talking about Godel numbers and codings.

You restrict the universe of statements to a set of formulas of a given language. Even in this case the truth predicate is undefinable so the OP's sentence can't be formalized. Or if you formalize the truth predicate in a metalanguage then when talking about all statements you will only talk about all statements of the object language.

I think OP meant something much more general than statements of a fixed object language L when he was talking about all statements.

So either:
1) "All statements are false" is self-referential (as I mean it), or
2) if we assume Godel numberings and that the sentence talks about its Godel-number then
2a) we don't have a truth predicate defined or
2b) we have a truth predicate but then we have meta statements outside of the quantification range
of "All statements are false".

This is why it can't be formalized.

"But it's not, and is perfectly definable in, say, Robinson's Arithmetic."
But it is because "a" is the first letter of the alphabet and
"The statement with the least Godel number that does not contain the first letter of the alphabet." contains "a".

edit: "the definiens can not contain the definiendum" in an explicit definition.

This argument fails when applied to a natural language, because there is no precise definition for <is a well-formed formula>. Only our intuition can tell us what do we consider a WFF. There isn't a fixed set of relation symbols either.

edit: Any anyways we are not talking about real self-reference just some kind of reflection. Let's modify the statement of the Berry paradox:
"The definition with the least Godel number not definable in fewer than 20 words."
This is also paradoxical.
Or "The statement with the least Godel number that does not contain the first letter of the alphabet."
This can be a paradox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-ojOnrfYk
From the essay:
"Although Ziegler has a credible explanation for everything that's happened--Harford's harassment, Nick Nightingale's beating, Mandy's death--we don't ever really know whether he's telling the truth or lying to cover up Mandy's murder. The script carefully withholds any conclusive evidence that would let us feel comfortably certain either way. But Ziegler does have suspiciously privileged access to details of the case: "The door was locked from the inside, the police are happy, end of story! [dismissive lip fart.]" He also claims to be dropping his façade and coming clean a few too many times to be believed: "I have to be completely frank," "Bill, please--no games," and finally, "All right, Bill, let's... let's... let's cut the bullshit, all right?" And notice how he introduces his explanation: "Suppose I were to tell you..." [emphasis mine]. He's not being "frank"; he's offering Bill an escape, a plausible, face-saving explanation for the girl's death to assuage his unexpectedly agitated conscience. (And it's one of the few things that Bill has a hard time buying--watch the way his hand adheres to his cheek and slowly slides off his face as he rises to his feet and walks dazedly across the room, trying to absorb the incredible coincidence Ziegler's asking him to swallow.)"

And 3 days after finishing the movie Kubrick died. The police are happy end of story. We have a credible explanation for everything that's happened.
This is the best movie of all times (for me).

If we have a first order language L we can define a relation symbol (with one variable) R by saying:
R(x) <-> Phi(x)
Where Phi(x) is a formula of L. R is not part of L so Phi does not contain R.
I call a statement a (naive) well formed definition if there is no such restriction.
In this sense 'This sentence contains the first letter of the alphabet' is not a formal definition.

You can say we can be more general and use higher order logic but higher order logic is also problematic.

edit: And yes i think being grammatically correct and being a well formed statement (or definition or whatever) are very close concepts in the natural language.

Problem is that preachers of the Bible are among the most greedy people on Earth.

Let me clarify what I want to say.
Let's take the Berry paradox. In the paradox there is a definition D which is talking about every (arithmetical) definition. D is a well formed definition in the natural language. However if we could formally model D in arithmetic that would mean arithmetic is inconsistent. When I call a concept "naive" I think of this. So there is a (naive) definition that can exist only outside of formal logic.

Same goes for sentences. We can't have a statement A where the definition of A mentions A. When you are talking about the S predicate you automatically restrict the universe to well-formed formulas and the sentence in the OP is no such statement. So there are statements outside of logic and outside of the S predicate. This is why the OP's sentence is outside of the scope of logic and his proof is not a formal proof.

We can't define Q formally (only in the informal metalanguage). There isn't such definition as
Q <-> (Q->Q and X)
Q is talking about all statements but Q itself is a statement and not part of the (subject) universe of statements.

I have to correct myself. Can't speak about all statements in a definition of a statement.

edit: But.... If we think about statements more naively and generally (or philosophically) then my statement is correct, because your post is about formal statements and not all statements. I think OP counts every self-referential sentence as a statement. In this sense I was correct in my post.

Maybe you are right but I don't think that Kubrick would make a movie without deep social critique. I see your point though.

"Why?"
Because Your arguments can not be formalized. You can't speak about "all statements" formally.

Nvm I like your idea. I just don't see why we should choose your idea of giving truth value instead of the other one.

My claim is independent if these events "really" happened in the fictional universe. My claim is that Kubrick indirectly (through fictional events) tells us how members of the elite class do their business. He never was a direct guy was he? And the fact that he died a couple of days after finishing the movie makes this message even more powerful (imo).

I don't really know what is going on in the political scene of the US. I am not into politics very much to be honest. I don't know if there are any (suspected) political homicides in the US. If the highest class of US society can get away with murder then I will accept your claim. Until that I'm just hoping that Kubrick was just fantasizing.

I remember one case where a rich kid run over (I think) a mother and her baby in his jeep killing them both and his lawyers saved his ass.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/

This is how the elite controls everything immorally and keeps eyes of people "wide shut".
But that case is still not as wrong as the one in Kubrick's film.

edit: Back to the run down case. My opinion is that postmodern applied moral philosophy is a defense line for these bastards. Because if the parents of that kid let the kid become a complete psychotic animal then they are indeed responsible for what happened and they do not form any right to manage their wealth.

I agree with you in what you said. I don't mind if there are classes of society. But the point of the movie is that the highest class can get people killed and get away with it. That there are laws for people and there is the elite class and the members of this class ignore these laws or human rights. If that is true the whole concept of the government or society is a lie because those are not built on human rights.

I think the point could be to show that if we want to define a predicate P(x) in a formal language that means x exists then our only option is to make P a tautology.

The last part is necessary for the formula to be well-formed.
And yes, it is a tautology, but it expresses existence. Any other tautologies would be sufficent.
If the predicate expressing existence isn't a tautology then it does not characterize existence.

Existence can be modelled syntactically:
P(x) iff ∃x(x=x)
P(x) is true if and only if x exists. (x exists iff it equals with itself)

Semantical existence can't be modelled imo. We need an ontology as a naive metatheory for that.

University logic says you did not prove anything. Your statements are meaningless. You're welcome.
edit: Who are the "most logicians and philosophers" you are referring to?

In formal logic directly self referential statements like the one you showed do not exist and can not be defined. So your problem is a problem of naive logic or just playing with words and is not exact at all.

We know other self referential sentences like:
A: A is false
B: If B is true then 1+1=1
C: C is true
D: All statements are false

A and B leads to contradiction directly.
C and D do not, however.

I think it is a matter of opinion whether we say the truth value of C and D can be defined or not. Again: in formal logic these sentences do not exist hecne the problem has no meaning.

My personal opinion is that if there is a truth value (true or false) for which a statement do not imply contradiction then we can potentially assign that truth value to the statement, so D is false.
(If we have 3 truth values: T,F and X then T or X is true imo. your logic can be different, but that has nothing to do with being right or wrong)

So what is your conclusion?

You argument itself is valid in sentential logic. So you have proven the existence of God. But wait!
I can also prove the existence of God:
1. axiom: God exists. q.e.d

In practice the point of these types arguments is to persuade others to believe in God and accept the religion of the speaker. This is why religious people seldom use this onthological argument. (Because of the weird consequences I just mentioned which will contradict the Bible and stuff)
We have to go deeper and use predicate logic and a formal language to test the "deeper" validity of the argument.

This argument, however is just a fine little naive piece of logic. And even weirder: it is contradictiory imo. Let P(x) mean x is so great that you can't even imagine how great he is. Now P(x) is greater than not P(x) so P(G). But if you can't imagine the greatness of God then you have a contradiction because you stated at the beginning that you can imagine God. So the statements in (naive) predicate logic are inconsistent, you can prove that God exists and you can prove that God does not exist.

Let me clarify even more why we need predicate logic here:
1. premise: I'm a human being
2. premise If I'm a human being then I have 8 eyes and 8 legs.
3. conclusion: I have 8 eyes and 8 legs

This is a perfectly valid argument however we need predicate logic and knowledge about human beings to know that is in fact invalid. Anselm's argument is the same.

I can imagine God riding a pink unicorn. This is greater than not riding one. Therefore God rides a pink unicorn.

If one accepts your argument then he has to accept that God rides a pink unicorn. Basically for a lot of predicates P(G) is greater than not P(G) therefore P(G) is true.

So either we don't accept the argument or we accept it, but then we can prove weird things.

The argument is not formalized. When you try to formalize it you will see the problems I mentioned. By saying "God is the ..." you assume God exists (not in your imagination but in your logic).

I think you would like this ontological argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

The sentence "God is the greatest being imaginable" when formalized looks something like:
"There exists the greatest being (entity) imaginable and is called God.". In the first premise you assume that God exists, why bother proving its existence?

edit: This argument contains a lot of controversial topics from logic. Descriptions or using existence as a predicate are a few of them.

There are roughly two methods of science, I hope we all agree in that. One is the empirical and the other is the theoretical (axiomatic in my book) method. In schools they don't have the time or tools or whatever to teach these two properly. So either there are (I wouldn't say flaws but) big jumps and lots of unproven statements in theoretical sciences and a ton of empirically unproven statements. So the system doesn't measure how well you do science but can you be a well-functioning member of society. Without basically any useful knowledge about the driving forces of society or morality. And when society is fucked up this can be a very dangerous thing.

And I think that is similar to Lock's opinion on the matter because in fact they limit the knowledge to certain categories based on how can we serve the institutions wich have heaps of money and 0 morality at all.

Edit: an example of shitty education is how they teach evolution. Since it is not based on science basically getting an A in evolution is the same as getting an A in creationism. Just learning some kind of pseudo-science. Now does getting an A in creationism mean anything? Now does getting an A in any kind of pseudo-science mean anything at all? A major part of education at any level is just pseudo-science or a practical knowledge to get a job at a profit-oriented institution. Therefore I think it is immoral to classify people based on grades in these subjects.

You have put this into words perfectly. (2.) is my main concern.

We have to shout out that the system is corrupt and is run by thieves and worse. They don't teach that at school.

They want us to feel worthless but this is not the case.
The system was created by people, it is run by people and people (or nature) will end it (I'm afraid I'm being too optimistic in that).

I'm from Eastern-Europe so the flaws of education and wage-slavery are strongly present. I think, however that majority of the world suffers from that more or less.
And that gospel metaphor... I still don't get it. If the goal at school were to find the truth or simply get better by learning from our mistakes that would be fine. I'm afraid that the system is much more evil under the surface.
We can agree in that American English is the only English!

I think grades and wages are the same in the sense that they support the system which is itself immoral by the above definition(?). Yes they are completely different from a lot of perspectives.
There are the useful things about education you have mentioned but then there is the dark side of the whole system. I think there is grade-slavery similar to wage-slavery.
I think every science has its philosophy and epistemology but they don't teach it at schools. For if they did, the majority of people would hate the system. Like the morality of economics today is basically money <==> good and the only moral duty of people is consuming.

I would say paying for something is a necessary pain.
Buying unnecessary stuff only to be the king of the hill causes unnecessary pain.

Maybe we could define the concept of pain being (morally?) unnecessary.
An action (or state?) X yields necessary pain if there isn't a possible world in which for every 'a' capable of doing X: 'a' doesn't do X and everyone's utility function is not lower that in the actual world.

So if nobody would pay for stuff then the world wouldn't be a better place. That's why paying at TESCO is a necessary pain.
If nobody would buy unnecessary luxury goods that are unaffordable for a lot of people then the world would be a better place for everyone. So it causes unnecessary pain.

Your example shows that the definition of immorality is not characterized by my condition.

edit: The definition should be modified. Everyone's should be replaced by everyone whos not immorally wealthy or something like that. Now the definition of being immorally wealthy is another question.

The proof is correct. Your premises however are not equivalent with the English axioms because you need one more predicate to express "x wants to suffer".

Jeah my problem is not the rating system itself but how it is done today. My English just simply sucks so I can't express myself well enough.
You and your "pedigree" are basically the same in most aspects of life.
-i dont understand that sheep/maths problem and what it has to do with this.

You have a point. But if we want any kind of debate to take place then we need some kind of "rating system"; namely we have to rate a sentence "true" or "false".
Instead of "immoral" I could have been using the expression "causes a lot of unnecessary pain". I think if something causes a lot of unnecessary pain that thing is immoral. But that is irrelevant anyways.
My original question can be reformulated to a question which does not involve "rating" directly. Maybe you accept that question.
Do the modern education and salary-system cause a lot of unnecessary pain?
(That is the basic thought behind my use of "immoral").
edit: So I use a rating system but we all have to rate things in order to get anything useful. My goal was to criticize the modern economical and educational rating-systems.

I did not say I wasn't brainwashed. In fact the things I wrote and being brainwashed by the educational system are consistent in my opinion. A lot of other people may be well aware of the flaws of the system so they aren't necessarily brainwashed in every aspect. I try to be objective so my point is not based on me being smarter than the others but observations about the system which anyybody can agree or disagree on. So being smarter or not is irrelevant when talking about observations and debating about the possible consequences of these observations.

Interesting that somebody voted for grades being moral and salary being immoral. I think they are basically the same the only difference is the age of the people who get them