The Solution to The Liar’s Paradox is Simple. It’s a Lie. Here’s Why.

Summary: The liar’s paradox, like all paradoxes, and most if not all philosophical claims of depth, complexity, or undecidability consists of nothing but malformed statements in the grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation that violate the contract of suggestion (truthful speech) and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit, between speaker and audience.

Given the Liar’s Paradox (And all the historical equivalents):

“[ everything in this box is false ]”

1. Langauge consists of “Incremental suggestion by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation”, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

2. The liar’s paradox is grammatically incorrect because it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information – in algorithmic logic this is called an infinite loop: a malformed statement that violates the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

3. Human Cognition: Consists of the series: Sensation, Logic (constancy of relations in time frame), Predictive Memory (elements), Episodic Memory (location, place(space), direction, turn direction, head direction, eye direction, objects, landmarks, boundaries, exits), Auto-Association, Wayfinding (Recursion), Adversarial Prediction, Thalmic Awareness, Attention-Recursion, Choice, Action, Repeat (recurse).

4. Human Grammatical Capacity is just an application of the primitive hierarchy of movement: Continuous Recursive Disambiguation.

5. Human Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammars of continuous recursive disambiguation.

6. Human Speech organized by Grammar of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continuous recursive disambiguation as due diligence against error, bias, deceit both parties.

7. All Paradigms (disciplines) from logic and math to Ordinary Language to the fictionalisms (occult->theology, sophistry->idealism, magic-pseudoscience) consist of either deflationary elimination of dimensions of human perceptible constant relations or inflationary removal of constraints on observables open to human sense perception and increases in permissible dimensions of fictions.

8. Words don’t mean things people do. People fail to communicate, or we fail to interpret their failure of communication, or we err in interpretation.

9. The only intent (meaning) of a paradox is to deceive (or create an illusion) – because it was created by intent – just as are optical illusions. Humans find very few natural conditions that can ‘fool’ human sense perception for more than a few moments -including such complex imagery as zebras.

10. Success of these illusions that exploit human intuition is dependent on human ignorance of their construction. We can learn to detect and correct for them just as we can learn to detect and correct for mirages.

11. The example of the liar’s paradox illustrates operational (algorithmic) vs set logic and why the foundations of mathematics, philosophy, and the philosophy of language movements failed to produce the sciences they sought – and even physics to economics suffer from this continued failure.

12. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence.

13. We call this failure of the philosophical and logical movments ‘mathiness‘ or the failure to grasp the operational foundations of mathematics, vs the verbal, set, or symbolic reduction of mathematics for ease of human use. (In particular that the computational reducibility of mathematics is far smaller than the computational possibility of operations.)

14. The failure of thought leadership in western civilization in the 20th is due to the failure of Babbage (or his peers) to generalize his discovery of computation, allowing a century of innumeracy, sophistry, and pseudoscience, to crate what Hayek called ‘the new mysticism’.

15. It has taken the Turing revolution, the computational revolution, the neuroimaging revolution, and the AI revolution (and one simple insight of Chomsky’s application of Turning) to solve a problem that never should have occurred, and now we must reverse the better part of two centuries of sophistry and pseudoscience, producing a third scientific revolution that corrects them.

[End of Document]

Leave a Reply