Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: The Subject of This Article
Message-ID: <1629@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 16:22:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1629
Posted: Sat Aug 31 16:22:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 02:34:17 EDT
References: <374@aero.UUCP> <27500106@ISM780B.UUCP> <173@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 62


> That's *Raymond* Smullyan, Jim.  You're getting him confused with me,
> which is easy to do since we're both Taoists, solipsists (but isn't
> everyone), classical pianists, and masters of fallacious logic. [CARNES]

I see what you mean by fallacious logic.  A solipsist wouldn't believe
that there is an "everyone" each of whom could believe that he/she is a
solipsist.  More examples followed.

> This sentence should be disregarded, since it was inserted merely to
> fill out the article.  And *this* sentence isn't even in English,
> although it may well seem so at first glance.

I am aware that in Guocammoli it means "This sentence is actually in English."

>                A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DOG
> 
> Consider the following statement, which we will call Sentence A:
>           If this sentence is true, then Dog exists.
> 
> Suppose Sentence A is true.  Since this fulfills the condition in
> Sentence A, the consequent follows, i.e., that Dog exists.  So we
> have shown that *if* Sentence A is true, then Dog exists.  But that
> is just what Sentence A asserts; hence we have proven that Sentence A
> is true.  It follows (by Sentence A) that Dog exists.   Q.E.D.

(Let's forget for the moment the fact that Sentence B, "If this sentence is
true, god does not exist.", is equally true...)
What's really humorous about this "logic" (and the term is being used oh so
loosely) is that it is akin to the basis for all belief in god in the first
place.  Suppose God exists. Then it all follows "logically".  Never even bother
to consider for one minute the possibility that the sentence might be false.

Clearly the sentence isn't true, precisely because it's got cause and effect
ass backwards.  Let us compare totally self-referential sentences with 
sentences that aren't (call them "extrareferential" if you like).  The
structuring of such sentences in particular ways cannot make things exist or
not exist in the real world.  Extrareferential sentences are true or false
because of the way they affect the real world.  Since whether or not a thing
exists cannot be dependent on the truth or falseness of a sentence alone,
Sentence A is clearly false.  (There is one exception I can think of:
definitions, such as "God is a ... ."  They are "true" only because they are
relational symbological tautologies.  Of course, if the thing described by
the definition doesn't exist, e.g., unicorn, then the word doesn't represent
something real.)

> Arf, arf.  By similar reasoning, one can show that humans have free
> will.  Refute *that*, Rich Rosen.

Child's play.  No kidding.  I'm not impressed.  This was not a good example of
incredible paradoxical self-referentiality.  Try again.  :-)

> The rest of this article is in Bolivia, written on a

terminal at Rich Rosen's house, and it has two incorrect assertions, one of
which was about Bolivia.  Figure that one out.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr