Let,
"This sentence is false."
Case 1: Let us assume that the sentence is true. If it is true, then what it says must be the case.
It says it is false. Therefore it must be so.
Okay let's assume the sentence is false as it says.
Case 2: If it is false, then what it says is a lie, that is it implies that the sentence is true and thus we reiterate back to Case 1 which leads us to case 2 and so on.
Perhaps when Shakespeare implied "Fair is foul; and foul is fair", he meant such a sort of incomprehensibility in Macbeth.
However, this particular sentence:
"This sentence is false."
proves that true becomes false and false becomes true. It reveals that our system of logic has a hole in it.
Do you know what is the hole?
Don't expect me to know the answer, I'm no God.
The only hole I assume is that it is the langage.
It started with Epimenides, a Cretan who famously said "All Cretans are liars"
If he is telling the truth, he is lying.
If he is lying, he might be telling the truth.
But can we fix it?
Logicians like Alfred Tarski argued that we need "Meta-languages".
You cannot talk about language within the same language. You need a higher level of language to judge the lower level.
But that just creates an infinite ladder of languages.
Do you know what this proves?
This proves that logic is not perfect.
Kurt Godel later used this concept to prove that in any complex system (like math or logic), there are true statements that cannot be proven.
We want the world to be binary. Black or white. True or false. But that is not how reality works. And the liar's paradox exposes this.
I believe, truth is not defined and is relative to the observer, but absolute truth is absolute. However, I believe, truth is like motion, relative to the observer. We know that truth is supposed to be true, because we know it. Say, when an object is moving, we call it to be in "motion". But even though the concept of absolute rest and motion are defined, it doesn't exist because an object is never at rest in this universe. So, the concept of absolute truth is a game of language indeed.
Till Copernicus, the truth was that the sun and all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. Yet as time passed, we stumbled upon another truth that proves the previous one false.
When I am in water, am I indeed in water or do I assume it true that I am in water because I call it "water".
A drunk man perceives it as "truth" that he is not drunk and behaves strange because his immediate surroundings are distorted to his will which is "truth" to him but not to us.
When a soldier is in war, his nations find it "true" that he is fighting for his nation, while to the opposing nation, he is found "true" to be an aggressor or terrorist.
I would like to quote:
“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” — Laozi
And then we have love. A force that makes you think it is "truth" that up is down, right is wrong.
Thus, truth exists but is not absolute to us. Absolute truth might be a hypothetical concept, that can never be perceived by the human mind which labels something as "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, Wittgenstein once said: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” - which clearly shows that you don’t see reality as it is, you see it as your words allow you to see it. And then again, my definition of "truth" might not be true to someone else :)
Do you think "Truth" is absolute, or is it actually a game of languages? Does that mean, those philosophers and saints gone in search of truth, are merely tragic actors to this game of life?
I think that in the early 80s, after I got a copy of "Gödel, Escher, Bach" for my bday - luckily for me in English - this concept of a world full of self-referential structures opened my mind a bit to the way up not always being that, and neither the way down, but that instead we're all kind of waddling in circles. The circles change but they don't become a line; at most a spiral.
So from that perspective[1] I think that there's not even tragedy. Just you search, you find answers, and then you are back at having more questions, which you'll have to find answers for. Or like a socratic pendejo that just never stops asking why... allegedly not even after you shoot them.
The things you aspire to know will only make you have more questions, but, being ignorant means you'll just be boring. So let's waste our days searching for whatever we are triggered by. Truth, peace, love, or it just making sense in some way... it's all very fragile ultimately. We ought to enjoy the path though, even when we know it leads just to another path. The destination is unknown.
a perspective of cyclic force that fwiw completely destroyed my career drive and instead made me a weird mf that lives rapid cycles - not recommended if you desire to at least be a little normal. I have made a habit the past couple years out of re-reading books I haven't touched for decades, but this one... I'm not even sure if I really wanna. (I do actually but I need a vacay for that one.) ↩
Oh yes, the Strange Loops, I remember.
Is it really unknown? I think we're all aware of the teetering balance between life and death? In Indian spiritualism we have the unsaid secret of the Gyanganj which is a legendary, mystical Himalayan kingdom of immortal sages that exists on a higher spiritual dimension beyond ordinary physical perception and satellite mapping.
Gyanganj represents a reality where normal rules of aging, mortality, and physical decay do not apply. Time flows differently, allowing enlightened beings (siddhas) to remain eternally conscious and active. Hindu and Buddhist traditions view it as a sacred vault of supreme spiritual knowledge. As noted in Untold Stories of Mystic GyanGanj, “The Buddhists consider that Shambhala protects the secret non secular teachings of the world.” It corresponds to Siddhashram in Hindu lore and Shambhala in Tibetan Buddhism. [1, 2]
But I'm not preaching spiritualism without evidence as i'm a scientific man myself.
Swami Vishudhananda and Surya Vijnan
Swami Vishudhananda Paramahamsa (popularly known as Gandha Baba) was initiated into the secret Himalayan kingdom of Gyanganj. He spent 12 years there under the tutelage of masters like Swami Nimanand Paramahansa and Maharshi Mahatapa. [1, 2, 3, 4]
THERE IS A YOUTUBE VIDEO OF HIM PERFORMING IT LIVE IN FRONT OF PEOPLE, i just lost it because i haven't been in touch with these things for so long, i had particularly saved this video....
Did you know about Mahavatar Babaji, the supreme, ageless guru popularized globally by Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi? [1, 2]
THIS PERSON IS STILL ALIVE AND IS HIGHLY CENSORED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS!
@optimism beat me to the Eternal Golden Braid reference. I've tried to read it three times and never finished -- it always starts me down a rabbit hole that becomes more consuming than the book, even though the book itself is very engaging. It's probably the first time I bumped up against the liar's paradox.
I was glad to see that the OP brought up Daodejing (can't remember if Hofstadter did). I used to enjoy reading the dao and zen koans principally because I thought I could crack it/them and find some iron truth. At some point I wondered if it wasn't the case that such things don't have the truth as their point -- perhaps not even a truth.
It seems to me that truth is absolute enough for us to stay sane but if you want to push against its boundaries you can easily discover that truth isn't absolute but firmly convincing yourself of this is no different from being insane -- which is to say it's not very useful.
It is insane to believe that truth is absolute, but you can't stay sane if you don't have some such thing to hold on to. So I fear that my answer is that you probably shouldn't think about it too much.
can't really say it much better than this.
Douglas Hofstadter and his butterflies.
From here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-sightings-of-hofstadters-butterfly-emerged-from-a-happy-accident/
Didn't know he was also a famous philosopher (at the same time, weren't they all philosophers, the physicists of old times?)
I like how he's realistic about probably not being able to truly understand the current science. I feel that more and more often myself where I need real time to get it.
Yeah, gone are the times that scientists (or specialists from any technical field, for that matter) could have a decent grasp of the whole field, or even several fields. I barely understand what my office colleague is working on.
I didn't know about the butterflies. this is so cool!
Yeah, it's pretty cool that he made this huge contribution to math during his graduate studies and then mostly switched fields to become even more prolific.
Very humble guy, it seems. He knew he could not solve those (Harper) equations analytically, so he provided one of the first computer-assisted solutions to them.
I have generated many such butterflies in my work in recent years. His mathematical curiosity from 1976 was realized experimentally only a little more than 10 years ago.
This is kind of the norm for me with any inspiring book. The first time reading The Sovereign Individual took me years. I'd just get sidetracked every few pages and be thinking about something and then this whole universe to explore would open. For some books I really have to force myself to get back into it after having my own thought trains - that can last months. I'm more relaxed now though - I guess age allows us to have some existing perspectives and not need to explore as much - but I still experience this a couple of times per book, even when re-reading. Thus why I'd need a vacay to touch this one. Maybe a sabbatical. haha.
Hah! Kind of disagree with this though. Being insane can be a superpower, you just have to learn to wield it. Plus, you have to be a little bit insane if you're a Bitcoiner, especially a stacker - the masses are definitely not here with us. Enjoy being a little insane.
yes, the saying it's not very useful isn't right.
I was thinking of why we seek "absolute" truth rather than something softer (eg true enough, true in this context). I have looked for absolute truth because I want a sense of safety that comes from certainty and having something decided and knowing where it stands. But the liars paradox points out some holes in that safety, so what I was calling "not very useful" is the sense that I think I can only have absolute truth as long as I'm not very rigorous about it -- which sort of defeats the purpose.
I've been thinking about doing a Sovereign Individual book club on SN. I enjoyed having a reason to push through the Praxeology of Privacy (gotta read my chapter so I can talk about it on SN...) but perhaps the thing I really should do is a GEB book club.
Ah! I just always assume that after doing something or studying something, I am perhaps closer to the truth (well... a truth) than I was before. But thanks to it all being circles, no matter how hard I accelerate[1] I still won't ever catch up. I just end up having a higher velocity. I get loads of things wrong though... So maybe its all just subjective crap we tell ourselves to feel better about our insignificance.
PS: book club is a great idea. I had trouble keeping up in reading along with you but you did point me to interesting things.
just did a year of massive
dv/tand I feel like I'm only getting started. I curse the universe for no longer being 20 tho. Today's tech came too late for my bodily form so I guess i will have to find a way to digitize and upload myself and pester the world forever. ↩My aunt and uncle gave me a copy around that time too. They overestimated my intelligence. I was completely baffled and stopped reading about a third of the way through.
The point of such books is to display it prominently on your bookshelf and say that you've read it!
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance had that effect on me.
Now that one I really liked
A part of your post reminded me the paradox of beauty in Zhuangzi (see reference):
Beauty is only relevant depending on your referential, and I would interpret truth the same. What is considered to be true is true in some referential. E.g.: I see the colors as I do given a typical human being who can see red, green, blue and all derived colors. But someone with color vision deficiency would probably disagree with me. Give me two or three dimensions, I can represent it. Now give me four dimensions and my cognitive limitations make it hard for me to represent it even though in math it is perfectly fine.
So with respect to some referential, I think we can all agree to some truth, which we may find false in some distant future. I think truth exists, and we can consider it absolute given a referential.
Actually everything in science is true until proven otherwise, and changes of paradigm always take time to get accepted. What makes something reasonably true at some point is that it can be falsified and tested. Given that, it seems fine to me to consider something absolutely true given nothing else falsifies what I believe to be true.
I digress a bit but recently I was reading a book written by John McMoneagle who was using "remote viewing" for US agencies. He was discussing in his book about our perception of time with past, present and future. For him, although he can't explain it precisely, what we think about time is more complex. I find it fascinating that even basic concepts such as time, that in math we typically represent as a single dimension and take it as granted, might actually be multidimensional or completely different than we think today.
Beautifully presented!
I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU TO READ 'A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME' BY STEPHEN HAWKINS!
that will answer most of your questions :)
Thank you! I got intrigued also by the other one discussed above "Gödel, Escher and Bach". I will check out both.
truth is that which is, where the past cannot be altered, where the consequences have to be dealt with, which all living & non-living, conscious & unconscious organisms obey 100% at every moment - that is Truth and it is objective & absolute;
it has been said (on a major TV network even, not some niche occult channel) - "humanity's greatest fear is that Truth is absolute;"
... a bunch of people lose their fiat minds over this fact;