219 replies to this topic

[Austin CG]

If i say "I always lie" (statement included) then the statement must be a lie to fall in line with my tendency. But if the statement "I always lie" is a lie, then i don't "always lie" - hence the paradox.

I hope i made that simple.

In other words this statement is only true if it is a lie and only a lie if it is true.

[hailey bailey]

Alright, so I don't know how anyone could solve this with math... lol.
It's a lie. The Cretan was lying both times he spoke to the Greeks. Both statements combined make one big fallacy... High School Philosophy my dear...

[lwcamboy]

Well... I consider that you just need to use math to find the solution.
(-) x (+) = (-)
Or you can use filosophy.

If I say that all the people in a town are liers.
I live in that town.
Im a lier, so, what I say is a lie.
The solution is that not everyone in the town is a lier.

The key here I beleive is that the cretan did not say that all cretan's lie all the time. So lets look at it this way, Do liars sometime tell the truth? Yes. Are they still liar's? Yes. So his first statement can be true, but his latter cannot.

[fodess]

He is definitely lying... in both cases... He couldnt know all the Cretans, so he couldnt tell that all the cretans are liars... Even if we dont "see" this fact, he said that every Cretan is a liar, this means that he is a liar too. In the Quote 2, he said, that the stuff what he said is truth, however, HES A CRETAN!!!, he must be a liar, and when somebody claims that hes a liar, and claims, that hes telling the truth, hes obviously lieing...

[Lil Stinker]

Actually, it is the truth.

It doesn't not state that ALL Cretans lie ALL the time, it simply states all Cretans are liars..

I could also state All people are liars & be telling the truth. In my experience, given the correct inspiration, everyone lies at one time or another.

The second statement lends more to confusion, but taken in parts it is simple, again the truth is that all Cretans are liars, the lie is that this person always speaks the truth.

Nothing anywhere says that there can not be the truth & a lie in the same statement, for example. I could say, "The truth is, I always lie." that statement is in fact a lie..

[simontrigowhite]

This is not a paradox.

The opposite of "All Cretans always tell lies" is not "All Cretans always tell the truth", it is "Not all Cretans always tell lies."

So by saying it he IS implying that he is telling a lie, so he is therefore saying "Not all Cretans always tell lies.". And there it stops!


A better one (which is truly a paradox) is: "This statement is false".

[Xin]

Maybe this deserves a deeper look into the nature of things. The statement, in its simplest interpretation, is a hypocritical stand. It is a run around, a yin yang if you want to call it that. Now, you cant disassemble this situation without taking into account its environment(ie our universe), because you cannot look at an individual without respect to his surroundings. With this you can see that there is a "whole", that all things are interconnected in a dual nature-good and evil, positive and negative. For there to be experience, there needs be polar opposites-and in of themselves, these opposites are not the truth nor lie. The more we dissect things, the more we realize that nothing is really set-there is no "truth". You look at what we believed 30 years ago-that the universe was made up of protons, neutrons and electrons; and you take a look at today's theories: quantum mechanics, string theory, superstring theory. The more complicated you make it, the more you run around in a circle to reach the beginning. On top of this, human nature itself is hypocritical. We are one way one day, another the next. Our biological cells replace themselves every 6 years, there are people with varying conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar and split personality. Whats to say this Cretan did not have a split personality? A liar and a prick, rolled into one. Personality is not set, people are subject to changes-so anything and everything we say is a lie, but it may have been truth for the MOMENT. So my answer is this: there is only one truth, and that is absolute zero-which in itself is indefinable by us. So paradoxical sayings such as this one go to the "heart" of the matter, and show us the very basis of our own universe. We never tell the truth, we just say what we BELIEVE is the truth. All logic is built upon prior logic, but inherently NOTHING is known apriori. The only reason why we believe the sun will rise tommorow is because it has always risen during our lifetimes-but you cannot guarantee it. You can think of it metaphorically as mirrors within mirrors-it is infinite, but we can only see the first few reflections of the nature of things.

Xin

Edited by Xin, 30 October 2009 - 07:15 PM.

[Isheim]

Nice answer Xin The question is then, why do you think that you are 'Able' to define: there is only one truth, and that is absolute zero-which in itself is indefinable by us. In this case (as you tell us yourself) you contradicted yourself by defining what can't be defined. Defining the set in which cannot be a part of it self, must be a part of the set which is not a part of it self - again a paradox. You just have to change the way you ask the question about this - change the interpretation and use of the symbols you use in the paradox-formula. It's to complicated to give a proper answer right now, but Bertrand Russell comes with a great analyses about this in his essay from 1908 'Mathematical Logic as based on the theory of Types', if you're interested

[Xin]

Nice answer Xin The question is then, why do you think that you are 'Able' to define: there is only one truth, and that is absolute zero-which in itself is indefinable by us. In this case (as you tell us yourself) you contradicted yourself by defining what can't be defined. Defining the set in which cannot be a part of it self, must be a part of the set which is not a part of it self - again a paradox. You just have to change the way you ask the question about this - change the interpretation and use of the symbols you use in the paradox-formula. It's to complicated to give a proper answer right now, but Bertrand Russell comes with a great analyses about this in his essay from 1908 'Mathematical Logic as based on the theory of Types', if you're interested

Haha thanks. Ill take a look at the essay, it just seems that words are sometimes not enough to describe "it". We do our best, no?

Xin

[nonothing]

There is a 50/50 chance that the statement would be true or false. There could be a plethora of reasoning behind a lie, or not. You might guess by the nature of the person or suggestions based on their body language whether you would accept or contest the statement.