Paradox 4.3

According to the definition/usage of the word “true”:

A = “A” is true

“A” is true = A

e.g. The sentence “Snow is white” is true = Snow is white

Not-A = “A” is false

“A” is false = Not-A

e.g. The sentence “Snow is white” is false = Snow is not white

Paradox is due to the mixing of para-level (meta-level) and original level. As long as we do not allow mixing levels, there are no paradoxes. Every sentence should only be allowed to describe sentences which have lower levels. So the sentence “this sentence is false” should not be allowed.

this sentence is false = “this sentence is false” is (in ordinary level) true

this sentence is false = “this sentence is false” is (in meta level) false

In detail, according to the definition of the word “true”:

this sentence is false = “this sentence is false” is true

But according to the meaning of the sentence itself:

this sentence is false = “this sentence is false” is false

So there is a contradiction. 

— Me@2012.04.01

— Me@2012.10.05

— Me@2012.10.15

2012.10.15 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

原因 2.2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。

我覺得我對「原因」意思的講法,比李生的講法好一點,假設你沒有錯誤轉述他的意思。他講法的問題在於「任大任小」—— 範圍既不是小到,講單一特定事件(今次禮堂火警),亦不是大到,講一般事件(有關火災的自然規律、科學通則)。

如果小到講單一特定事件,「亂拋煙蒂」是「今次禮堂甲火警」的「先決條件」。如果大到講一般事件,「亂拋煙蒂」不是「火警」的「先決條件」。如果範圍在兩者之間,但又沒有講明在兩者之間的哪裡,那「『亂拋煙蒂』是不是『先決條件』?」就沒有所謂「答案」。如果範圍在兩者之間,而你又已經釐清問題的話,答案就會顯而易見:

「亂拋煙蒂」是「今次禮堂甲火警」的「先決條件」。

「亂拋煙蒂」不是「禮堂甲火警」的「先決條件」。

「亂拋煙蒂」不是「火警」的「先決條件」。

— Me@2012.10.14

2012.10.15 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK