Main.LiarYablo History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

May 12, 2007, at 08:42 AM by 219.77.142.103 -
Changed line 9 from:
* [Required] Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53, 251–252.
to:
* [Required] cite:yablo93
October 12, 2006, at 03:32 PM by 219.78.90.168 -
Changed line 73 from:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out instances of S'n': ∀x≥(n+1) S'_x_' is not true.
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out instances of S'_n_': ∀x≥(n+1) S'_x_' is not true.
Changed lines 13-14 from:

to:
* Laurence Goldstein. 2006. Fibonacci, Yablo, and the Cassationist Approach to Paradox. Mind 2006 115: 867-890. doi:10.1093/mind/fzl867
Changed lines 9-10 from:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53, 251–252.
to:
* [Required] Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53, 251–252.
* [Recommended] J. C. Beall. 2001. Is Yablo's Paradox Non-circular? ''Analysis'', 61:3, July, 176-87. doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00292
Changed lines 13-14 from:
* J. C. Beall. 2001. Is Yablo's Paradox Non-circular? ''Analysis'', 61:3, July, 176-87. doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00292
to:

August 25, 2006, at 02:51 PM by 147.8.22.251 -
Added lines 16-19:
Kripke's example

@@@(Jack) Jack is short.@@@

August 22, 2006, at 11:39 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 73-74 from:
to:
* Issue: Is this list well-defined?
August 22, 2006, at 11:36 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 72-73 from:
to:
* The specification of the supermachine involves self-reference, but not the completed list. (1s for S'_1_', 0.5s for S'_2_', 0.25 for S'_3_' ...)
August 22, 2006, at 11:34 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 68-72 from:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out instances of S'n': ∀x≥(n+1) S'x' is not true.
**  S'1': ∀x≥2 S'x' is not true.
**  S'2': ∀x≥3 S'x' is not true.
**  S'3': ∀x≥4 S'x' is not true. ...
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out instances of S'n': ∀x≥(n+1) S'_x_' is not true.
**  S'_1_': ∀x≥2 S'_x_' is not true.
**  S'_2_': ∀x≥3 S'_x_' is not true.
**  S'_3_': ∀x≥4 S'_x_' is not true. ...
August 22, 2006, at 11:33 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 68-69 from:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out on line n: ∀x≥(n+1) S'_n+1_' is not true.
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out instances of S'n': ∀x≥(n+1) S'x' is not true.
**  S'1': ∀x≥2 S'x' is not true.
**  S'2': ∀x≥3 S'x' is not true.
**  S'3': ∀x≥4 S'x' is not true. ...

August 22, 2006, at 11:31 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 68-69 from:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out on line n: ∀x≥(n+1) S^_n+1_^ is not true.
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out on line n: ∀x≥(n+1) S'_n+1_' is not true.
August 22, 2006, at 11:31 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 68-69 from:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints ∀x
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints out on line n: ∀x≥(n+1) S^_n+1_^ is not true.
August 22, 2006, at 11:22 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 68-69 from:
to:
* Suppose there is a supermachine that prints ∀x
August 22, 2006, at 11:15 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 57-58 from:
@@@Priest has shown that any description we employ to pick out (or otherwise define) a Yabloesque sequence is circular; this much Sorensen concedes. From here, however, it is a small step to the circularity of the sequence itself. We are fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ via (attributive) description, which means that ‘Yablo’s paradox’ denotes whatever satisfies the given reference-fixing description. The situation, however, is this: that the satisfaction conditions of our available reference-fixing descriptions require a circular satisfier – a sequence that involves circularity, self-reference, a fixed point. Given all this, it follows that the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ is circular. The upshot of this is apparently missed by Sorensen; the upshot is that, unless we find some other way of fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’, we are stuck fixing it on a circular sequence – a sequence containing fixed points, self-reference, etc.@@@
to:
@@@Priest has shown that any description we employ to pick out (or otherwise define) a Yabloesque sequence is circular; this much Sorensen concedes. From here, however, it is a small step to the circularity of the sequence itself. We are fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ via (attributive) description, which means that ‘Yablo’s paradox’ denotes whatever satisfies the given reference-fixing description. The situation, however, is this: that '''the satisfaction conditions of our available reference-fixing descriptions require a circular satisfier''' – a sequence that involves circularity, self-reference, a fixed point. Given all this, it follows that the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ is circular. The upshot of this is apparently missed by Sorensen; the upshot is that, unless we find some other way of fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’, we are stuck fixing it on a circular sequence – a sequence containing fixed points, self-reference, etc.@@@
August 22, 2006, at 11:12 AM by 219.77.143.38 -
Changed lines 51-52 from:
* As finite beings our finite description of the paradox must involve self-reference in order to specify the infinite list of sentences. But this does not imply that the paradox itself is self-referential.
to:
* It is possible that as finite beings our finite description of the paradox must involve self-reference in order to specify the infinite list of sentences.
* But this does not imply that the paradox itself is
self-referential.
@@@The sentence exactly the same as this sentence except that the first ten words have been deleted.@@@

August 21, 2006, at 12:05 PM by 219.77.142.156 -
Added lines 63-66:
!!!Reply

* "All possible descriptions" vs. "all humanly possible descriptions"

August 21, 2006, at 12:02 PM by 219.77.142.156 -
Changed lines 5-6 from:
[-"Everyone behind me is lying."-]
to:
[-"Everyone behind me is thinking an untruth."-]
Changed lines 57-62 from:
to:
# Reference is fixed either by demonstration or description.
# The referent of "Yablo's paradox" is not fixed by demonstration.
# So it is fixed by description.
# All possible descriptions for fixing the referent of "Yablo's paradox" require that the referent be a circular sequence.
# So the referent of "Yablo's paradox" is indeed circular.

August 21, 2006, at 11:57 AM by 219.77.142.156 -
Changed lines 52-54 from:
* See Beall's responses.

to:

!!Beall

@@@Priest has shown that any description we employ to pick out (or otherwise define) a Yabloesque sequence is circular; this much Sorensen concedes
. From here, however, it is a small step to the circularity of the sequence itself. We are fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ via (attributive) description, which means that ‘Yablo’s paradox’ denotes whatever satisfies the given reference-fixing description. The situation, however, is this: that the satisfaction conditions of our available reference-fixing descriptions require a circular satisfier – a sequence that involves circularity, self-reference, a fixed point. Given all this, it follows that the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’ is circular. The upshot of this is apparently missed by Sorensen; the upshot is that, unless we find some other way of fixing the reference of ‘Yablo’s paradox’, we are stuck fixing it on a circular sequence – a sequence containing fixed points, self-reference, etc.@@@

August 03, 2006, at 06:52 PM by 219.78.21.164 -
Added line 17:
** stanford:russell-paradox
July 30, 2006, at 05:09 PM by 219.78.20.110 -
Added lines 52-54:


[[Category.LogicAndMaths]]
July 19, 2006, at 02:11 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Added line 51:
* See Beall's responses.
July 19, 2006, at 02:10 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 50 from:
* As finite beings our finite description of the paradox must involve self-reference in order to specify the infinite list of sentences. But this does not imply that the paradox is self-referential.
to:
* As finite beings our finite description of the paradox must involve self-reference in order to specify the infinite list of sentences. But this does not imply that the paradox itself is self-referential.
July 19, 2006, at 02:03 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 42-43 from:
Sorensen:
to:
!!Sorensen
Changed line 50 from:
to:
* As finite beings our finite description of the paradox must involve self-reference in order to specify the infinite list of sentences. But this does not imply that the paradox is self-referential.
July 19, 2006, at 01:53 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 35-41 from:
to:
* Consider "Everyone behind me is lying." The speaker refers to himself.
** But not referring to its own truth / falsity / goundedness.
** Using eternal sentences (without indexicals and context dependence) to eliminate circularity -\\
"Everyone south of position X'_1_' is lying at time T.",\\
"Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T." ...
** Problem: How to define this list of sentences?

Changed lines 50-55 from:
* Consider "Everyone behind me is lying." The speaker refers to himself.
** But not referring to its own truth / falsity / goundedness.
** Using eternal sentences (without indexicals and context dependence) to eliminate circularity -\\
"Everyone south of position X'_1_' is lying at time T.",\\
"Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T." ...

to:
July 19, 2006, at 01:51 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Added lines 35-43:

Sorensen:

@@@As a finite thinker, Yablo can only generate his infinite sequence with a quantified expression of the form\\
\\
(Y'_n_') For all k greater than n, Y'_k_' is not true.\\
\\
The need for this proposition is disguised by casual presentations that merely list the first few members and then recourse to a vague "etc. and so on", or This explicit (Y'_n_') formulation is self-referential in the sense that (Y'_n_') uses its own location in the sequence as a reference point to specify which statements are not true i.e. the statements after (Y'_n_').@@@

July 19, 2006, at 01:41 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 30-32 from:
** Separation of object language from meta-language.
** Whether separation is sufficient for groundedness
.
to:
* Separation of object language from meta-language does not avoid ungroundedness.
July 19, 2006, at 01:40 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 11 from:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107, Vol. 425, Jan, 137-155.
to:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', Vol. 107, No. 425, Jan, 137-155.
July 19, 2006, at 01:40 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 11 from:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107:425, Jan, 137-155.
to:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107, Vol. 425, Jan, 137-155.
July 19, 2006, at 01:39 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 9 from:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53:251–252.
to:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53, 251–252.
Changed line 11 from:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107, Jan, 137-155.
to:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107:425, Jan, 137-155.
July 19, 2006, at 01:39 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Added line 11:
* Roy A. Sorensen. 1998. Yablo's Paradox and kindred infinite liars. ''Mind'', 107, Jan, 137-155.
July 19, 2006, at 01:36 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Added line 10:
* Graham Priest. 1997. Yablo's Paradox. ''Analysis'', 57.4, October, 236–242.
July 19, 2006, at 01:35 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 36 from:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity -\\
to:
** Using eternal sentences (without indexicals and context dependence) to eliminate circularity -\\
July 19, 2006, at 01:34 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 38-39 from:
"Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T."
to:
"Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T." ...
July 19, 2006, at 01:33 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 36-37 from:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X'_1_' is lying at time T.", "Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T."
to:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity -\\
"Everyone
south of position X'_1_' is lying at time T.",\\
"Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T."
July 19, 2006, at 01:33 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 36-37 from:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X is lying at time T."
to:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X'_1_' is lying at time T.", "Everyone south of position X'_2_' is lying at time T."
July 19, 2006, at 01:32 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 36-37 from:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X is lying."
to:
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X is lying at time T."
July 19, 2006, at 01:32 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 33-38 from:
* Yablo says that his paradox is "not in ''any'' way circular". Is this correct?
to:
* Yablo says that his paradox is "not in ''any'' way circular". Is this correct?
* Consider "Everyone behind me is lying." The speaker refers to himself.
** But not referring to its own truth / falsity / goundedness.
** Using eternal sentences to eliminate circularity - "Everyone south of position X is lying."

 
July 19, 2006, at 12:59 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Added lines 24-25:
* What if the sequence is finite?
July 19, 2006, at 12:54 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed line 31 from:
* Yablo says that his paradox is "not in any way circular". Is this correct?
to:
* Yablo says that his paradox is "not in ''any'' way circular". Is this correct?
July 19, 2006, at 12:54 PM by 219.77.144.185 -
Changed lines 28-31 from:
!!Responses
to:

!!Any circularity?

* Yablo says that his paradox is "not in any way circular". Is this correct?
July 18, 2006, at 07:35 PM by 219.77.144.16 -
Added lines 3-6:
media:queue.jpg

[-"Everyone behind me is lying."-]

Deleted lines 23-25:
media:queue.jpg
[-"Everyone behind me is lying."-]

July 18, 2006, at 07:34 PM by 219.77.144.16 -
Added lines 20-22:
media:queue.jpg
[-"Everyone behind me is lying."-]

July 18, 2006, at 07:33 PM by 219.77.144.16 -
Changed lines 21-23 from:
to:
* Is self-reference necessary for paradox?
** Separation of object language from meta-language.
** Whether separation is sufficient for groundedness.
July 18, 2006, at 05:05 PM by 219.77.144.16 -
Changed lines 11-12 from:
* Stephen Yablo disagrees. Consider an infinite series of sentences :
to:
* Stephen Yablo thinks that it is not necessary. Consider an infinite series of sentences :
July 18, 2006, at 04:15 PM by 219.77.144.16 -
Changed lines 10-11 from:
* This is a paradox that comes from the philosopher Stephen Yablo. Consider an infinite series of sentences :
to:
* Self-reference is not sufficient for paradox. But it is often thought necessary.
* Stephen Yablo disagrees
. Consider an infinite series of sentences :
July 11, 2006, at 10:08 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Changed lines 6-7 from:
* J. C. Beall. 2001. Is Yablo's Paradox Non-circular? ''Analysis'', 61:3, July, 176-87.
to:
* J. C. Beall. 2001. Is Yablo's Paradox Non-circular? ''Analysis'', 61:3, July, 176-87. doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00292
July 11, 2006, at 10:08 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Changed lines 5-6 from:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. Paradox without self-reference. Analysis. 53:251–252.
to:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. [[http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/pwsr.pdf|Paradox without self-reference]]. Analysis. 53:251–252.
* J. C. Beall. 2001. Is Yablo's Paradox Non-circular? ''Analysis'', 61:3, July, 176-87
.
Added lines 18-21:

!!Significance

!!Responses
July 11, 2006, at 10:00 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Changed line 11 from:
(S'_1_') All the sentences below from (S'_2_') onwards are not true.\\
to:
@@@(S'_1_') All the sentences below from (S'_2_') onwards are not true.\\
Changed lines 16-17 from:
...\\
to:
...@@@
July 11, 2006, at 10:00 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Changed lines 11-17 from:
(S'_1_') All the sentences below from (S'_2_') onwards are not true.
(S'_2_') All the sentences below from (S'_3_') onwards are not true.
(S'_3_') All the sentences below from (S'_4_') onwards are not true.
...
(S'_n_') All the sentences below from (S'_n+1_') onwards are not true.
...
to:
(S'_1_') All the sentences below from (S'_2_') onwards are not true.\\
(S'_2_') All the sentences below from (S'_3_') onwards are not true.\\
(S'_3_') All the sentences below from (S'_4_') onwards are not true.\\
...\\
(S'_n_') All the sentences below from (S'_n+1_') onwards are not true.\\
...\\
July 11, 2006, at 10:00 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Changed lines 1-17 from:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. Paradox without self-reference. Analysis. 53:251–252.
to:
!Paradox without self-reference?

!!Readings

* Yablo, Stephen
. 1993. Paradox without self-reference. Analysis. 53:251–252.

!!The new paradox

* This is a paradox that comes from the philosopher Stephen Yablo. Consider an infinite series of sentences :

(S'_1_') All the sentences below from (S'_2_') onwards are not true.
(S'_2_') All the sentences below from (S'_3_') onwards are not true.
(S'_3_') All the sentences below from (S'_4_') onwards are not true.
...
(S'_n_') All the sentences below from (S'_n+1_') onwards are not true.
...

July 11, 2006, at 09:44 PM by 218.103.247.158 -
Added line 1:
* Yablo, Stephen. 1993. Paradox without self-reference. Analysis. 53:251–252.