this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
27 points (90.9% liked)

General Discussion

12065 readers
250 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Can a sentence be both true and false in the same sense? - Dialetheism

It might seem nonsensical until one sees the liar's paradox:

This sentence is false.

Using classical logic, this sentence seems to be both true and false. Due to the explosion rule, that implies every sentence. This is absurd, but philosophers don't agree on what has gone wrong here.

Dialetheism is the solution that accepts that it is both true and false and modifies logic to exclude the principle of explosion

@general

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Snazz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

When I consider if the sentence is true, it claims to be false which is exclusive with truth, therefore the sentence is not true.

When I consider if the sentence is false, the claim is inverted, so the sentence has to be not false.

I arrived at a conclusion that is the opposite of Dialetheism, with the sentence being neither true nor false.