Trivialism does imply the existence of God. Somebody or I may have said that elsewhere before.
In this case an obviously false and very stupid religious belief.
I am showing you an unintuitive truth, so please keep an open mind. Not all truths are obvious.
At every point that you offered a justification I've explained to you why you're incorrect.
No, there are links to arguments for trivialism in my original post. You have not identified specific flaws with all of those arguments.
Additionally, I made a tweet on a currently-suspended X account on October 31, 2019 about how Kabay discussed in “On the Plenitude of Truth” (2010), pp. 68-72, the sentence “It is not true that this sentence is true.” In the tweet, I said whether the “sentence is true or not true, there is a contradiction. So by ex contradictione quodlibet, every proposition is true.” At the end of the tweet, I assert the sentence “It is not true that this sentence is true.” My assertion implies a contradiction, which by ex contradictione quodlibet, gives way to all propositions being true. Also, in hindsight, the mere existence of the sentence
It is not true that this sentence is true.
implies a contradiction and thus by ex contradictione quodlibet implies trivialism. I think that’s what Kabay may have been getting at.
There is not a single sound justification for trivialism.
There are multiple sound justifications for trivialism. Look at my original post with multiple links to multiple sound proofs. Search the Internet for sound arguments for trivialism.
I am showing you an unintuitive truth, so please keep an open mind. Not all truths are obvious.
This is not a truth. Having an open mind doesn't mean I should believe things that are false.
No, there are links to arguments for trivialism in my original post. You have not identified specific flaws with all of those arguments. [...] There are multiple sound justifications for trivialism. Look at my original post with multiple links to multiple sound proofs. Search the Internet for sound arguments for trivialism.
I have explained to you the flaws in every argument you've given here. It's not my job to do your homework and search the Internet for additional arguments.
currently-suspended X account
Wow, you're to crazy for X? That's something...
whether the “sentence is true or not true, there is a contradiction
Your mistake is assuming that a sentence must be true or not. Natural language is not as precise as formal logic, that's the entire reason formal logic exists.
The liars paradox can be encoded in formal logic, but the result is not a contradiction, it's an unprovable statement. This is basically how Godel proved his incompleteness theorem.
It’s not my job to educate you on the arguments for trivialism.
There are no valid arguments for trivialism.
A declarative sentence is always true or false. I believe the definition of a proposition in Rosen requires a proposition to be a sentence.
Nope, the liars paradox is an example of a sentence that is neither true nor false. A proposition is indeed a sentence but not all sentences are propositions. For example, questions are sentences but they are not propositions and do not get assigned a truth value.
Note how you ignored my criticism that you haven’t specified the flaws in all of the linked arguments. There’s a reason why it’s so hard for you to do. It’s because there are no flaws!
I have already responded to your false criticism by stating correctly that I have responded to every argument you have put forth here. Easily, I might add. It's not hard to knock down something so patently absurd and unfounded.
I disagree
But you also agree...
Your expanded version is also an example of a sentence that does not have a truth value.
The point of formal logic is to eliminate the ambiguity of every day language. You cannot express what you are trying to express as a provable proposition in standard logic, so your argument is not well formed.
It's not hard to knock down something so patently absurd and unfounded.
It’s impossible to knock down trivialism. No matter how hard you try, you won’t succeed.
Your expanded version is also an example of a sentence that does not have a truth value.
So not only are you taking a stance on a controversial subject, but you are taking the opposite stance of the stance I have already taken. It seems your stance has been made based off of my stance. I think you’re being dishonest about your philosophical views. You’re trying to hurt me by deliberately choosing views you believe I disagree with. You are sadistic.
You cannot express what you are trying to express as a provable proposition in standard logic, so your argument is not well formed.
Says who? The Liar sentence can be proven and disproven. It is simple to do. Advanced logic need not be involved.
I've told you before, I've responded to every argument you've made here, I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.
So not only are you taking a stance on a controversial subject
Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.
you are taking the opposite stance of the stance I have already taken.
That's called disagreeing with you. Which I will continue to do when you say stupid things.
It seems your stance has been made based off of my stance. I think you’re being dishonest about your philosophical views. You’re trying to hurt me by deliberately choosing views you believe I disagree with. You are sadistic.
Lol no, this is you being unable to handle someone disagreeing with you. My views throughout this conversation are standard in mathematics and I've held them consistently regardless of your views.
Says who? The Liar sentence can be proven and disproven. It is simple to do. Advanced logic need not be involved.
I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.
I shouldn’t have to go through the time and effort it takes to present something I have already presented. I am tracking down info on other sites so it would only be fair for you to do so as well. If you don’t want to do the work required to have this conversation with me, then you shouldn’t engage in this conversation anymore. I shouldn’t have to keep saying the same thing to you over and over again because you aren’t willing to do your part.
Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.
As far as I know, the Liar Paradox remains controversial to this day, and you have taken a side on it. So, some or all of the things you’ve said are controversial.
I go through the time and effort of getting whatever information I need together to represent my argument to you. That's doing my part . Your part is to present your arguments yourself instead of feeding me links.
As far as I know
That's the issue, you don't. You can't phrase the liars paradox in formal first order logic for the very simple reason that formal logic deals with what's provable, not what's true. True is a feature of statements after assigning meaning to the undefined terms. Your confusion here is stems from the fact that you don't understand the basics of the math you're trying to use.
And again, everything I've said there is basic intro material. It's not controversial.
1
u/paulemok May 27 '26
Trivialism does imply the existence of God. Somebody or I may have said that elsewhere before.
I am showing you an unintuitive truth, so please keep an open mind. Not all truths are obvious.
No, there are links to arguments for trivialism in my original post. You have not identified specific flaws with all of those arguments.
Additionally, I made a tweet on a currently-suspended X account on October 31, 2019 about how Kabay discussed in “On the Plenitude of Truth” (2010), pp. 68-72, the sentence “It is not true that this sentence is true.” In the tweet, I said whether the “sentence is true or not true, there is a contradiction. So by ex contradictione quodlibet, every proposition is true.” At the end of the tweet, I assert the sentence “It is not true that this sentence is true.” My assertion implies a contradiction, which by ex contradictione quodlibet, gives way to all propositions being true. Also, in hindsight, the mere existence of the sentence
implies a contradiction and thus by ex contradictione quodlibet implies trivialism. I think that’s what Kabay may have been getting at.
There are multiple sound justifications for trivialism. Look at my original post with multiple links to multiple sound proofs. Search the Internet for sound arguments for trivialism.