Psssssst...hey you...yes you....click me

[Poetic dreamer]

So you've clicked me and you're currently reading this sentence.

However, the sentence above did not exist while you were still reading it, because you did not get to the fullstop.

This means that the above sentence was false while you were reading it.

Does it instantly became true after you finished reading it? No. The sentence said "currently" so it could only be true while you are in the act of reading it. But it's false while you're reading it because of what I stated above.

(By the way, this is my very first post,and I thought a philosophy forum might be a great place since I've always thought about things like this and I always come up with (frivolous ?) pet theories)

[lordinfamous]

Kinda like when a tree falls over in the forest and no one is there to see and hear it; does the tree really fall over making a noise? Its this way of thinking that mathmatic's needs so that it may evolve. :approve:

[PerennialII]

Yep, the verification problem of epistemology with a modern twist. Makes wonder what is the role of the database for the argument.

[Poetic dreamer]

"Yep, the verification problem of epistemology with a modern twist"

Well, I'm not aware of this "problem" you're referring to. Could you please elaborate ? Thanks.

[RAD4921]

---This statement is false---

If the above statement is false then it is true but if it is true than it is false yet if it is false it is true...

The universe is also a self referencing sytem. It is a mirror from head to foot and this is where the paradox of infinity comes into existence.

[Thallium]

Delusive. The sentence above that I read exists, but my eyes do not have the capacity of seeing everything at once.

[Evo]

---This statement is false---

If the above statement is false then it is true but if it is true than it is false yet if it is false it is true...Nope. It would simply be true that the statement is false, it does not change the statement into a true statement. :rolleyes:

[Evo]

So you've clicked me and you're currently reading this sentence.

However, the sentence above did not exist while you were still reading it, because you did not get to the fullstop.The sentence existed as soon as you wrote it. :uhh:

This means that the above sentence was false while you were reading it.Uhm, no. It was true while I was reading it and it will be true every time I read it.

Does it instantly became true after you finished reading it? No. The sentence said "currently" so it could only be true while you are in the act of reading it. But it's false while you're reading it because of what I stated above. :confused: This makes no sense to me, sorry.

[dekoi]

I think you're making the mistake of stating that everything is contingent upon you.

If a tree falls and you're not there to see it, it still falls. The tree falling is not contingent upon the human being. If all humans suddenly died, the color blue would still be real.

[lordinfamous]

I think you're making the mistake of stating that everything is contingent upon you.

If a tree falls and you're not there to see it, it still falls. The tree falling is not contingent upon the human being. If all humans suddenly died, the color blue would still be real.
:uhh: This could go on and on. If everyone dies then who really is here to call blue, blue? Then is blue realy blue or is it nothing?

[Evo]

:uhh: This could go on and on. If everyone dies then who really is here to call blue, blue? Then is blue realy blue or is it nothing?It's blue, or whatever frequency/wavelength we call "blue" has, the actual name itself is meaningless, the frequency will be there no matter what.

Just as with the stupid tree falling in the forest scenario. The tree falling creates sound waves, just because no one is there to hear them doesn't mean they were not there. duh Dekoi, I agree with you.

[PerennialII]

"Yep, the verification problem of epistemology with a modern twist"

Well, I'm not aware of this "problem" you're referring to. Could you please elaborate ? Thanks.

As the post before mine stated about the tree falling over issue -- its a conundrum you typically encounter in epistemology, if a claim can not be verified in some way, how can it be justified, or lead to a valid theory ? We know it from past experience but the confusion is caused by the lack of verification (which also leads to other notorious problems like the Hume's one).

[RAD4921]

Nope. It would simply be true that the statement is false, it does not change the statement into a true statement. :rolleyes:

I must agree with your simple reasoning. I got the sentence from a philosophy book and this wasn't brought to attention. On the other hand, if one tackles the issue of the statement being true or false as either being true or false (one or the other) the self reference problem comes into existence. However, I do agree that the statement is true that it is false. :smile:

[AeroFunk]

Just as with the stupid tree falling in the forest scenario. The tree falling creates sound waves, just because no one is there to hear them doesn't mean they were not there. duh Dekoi, I agree with you.

Just becase there are sound waves in the air doesn't mean there is a sound. Sound i think is dependent on something hearing it. When the tree falls sure sound waves emit but is there a "sound," Im not so sure there is. Am I making any sense?

[dekoi]

Just becase there are sound waves in the air doesn't mean there is a sound. Sound i think is dependent on something hearing it. When the tree falls sure sound waves emit but is there a "sound," Im not so sure there is. Am I making any sense?

You're trying to use technicalities and the wording of the argument to prove your own argument. The question is not really asking whether there is sound (as a proper definition of "sound") but is actually questioning whether it happened at all. Therefore, we are questioning its occurrence, and not the things it emits or produces (such as sound waves). Who cares whether there is "sound"? The question is, 'Did it happen if noone saw it?' To which the answer is: Of course.

[PerennialII]

He may be sinking into a technicality, but the base argument still holds. It's not really all that relevant when talking about "simplistic" issues but in the scientific method overall ... a different deal.

[Evo]

Just becase there are sound waves in the air doesn't mean there is a sound. Sound i think is dependent on something hearing it. When the tree falls sure sound waves emit but is there a "sound," Im not so sure there is. Am I making any sense?How on earth can you not be sure there is a sound? What scientific evidence do you have that would support the notion that a tree falling in a forest would not make a sound? None?

Here is the definition of sound. It is not dependent on someone hearing it.

The first two definitions of sound:

1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. (notice here is says "capable")

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound

Sound is not dependent on someone hearing it. It is there regardless.

This from Princeton

3. sound -- (mechanical vibrations transmitted by an elastic medium; "falling trees make a sound in the forest even when no one is there to hear them")

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=sound

Can you show me one single study that would indicate that a tree falling in a forest would make no sound? If you have any such scientific evidence, I would be interested in seeing it. All scientific evidence AFAIK proves that it would make a sound.

What is the point of wasting time discussing it? What good does it do? What does this kind of discussion have to do with advancing science or understanding? What could possibly be a benefit from wondering about something like this? Unless you can show me scientific evidence that a tree could fall in a forest and NOT make a sound, it's nonsense.

Why not ask, if the sun is shining, but we're blind, is there still light? Uhm, yes, we just can't see it.

[lordinfamous]

this thread reminds me of the viennese mathematician Kurt Godel, who also stated that there are curious paradoxes in logic. for example, consider the statement "This sentence is false." If the sentence is true, then it follows that it is false. If the sentence is false, then the sentence is true. Or consider the statement "I am a liar." Then I am a liar only if I tell the truth. Godel then formulated the statement "This sentence cannot be proved true." If the sentence is correct, than it cannot be proved to be correct.

[PerennialII]

this thread reminds me of the viennese mathematician Kurt Godel, who also stated that there are curious paradoxes in logic. for example, consider the statement "This sentence is false." If the sentence is true, then it follows that it is false. If the sentence is false, then the sentence is true. Or consider the statement "I am a liar." Then I am a liar only if I tell the truth. Godel then formulated the statement "This sentence cannot be proved true." If the sentence is correct, than it cannot be proved to be correct.

Interesting points, these go into the heart of the issue rather than the physics arguments. This does not have that much to do with physics but doing physics, and as such, with the scientific method, logic, epistemology etc.

[Dovekie]

Kinda like when a tree falls over in the forest and no one is there to see and hear it; does the tree really fall over making a noise? Its this way of thinking that mathmatic's needs so that it may evolve. :approve:

I've never understood the concept of the tree falling over, but nobody being there to hear it so therefore it made no noise. I've always thought that even though nobody heard it fall, it still made a noise. Because it would have make a noise falling over, regardless of whether anybody was there to hear it. Isn't that right? I don't even know why that is a question one has to ponder about. Obviously, it made a noise.

[PerennialII]

To get to the point I'd forget about the tree and replace it instead e.g. with quantum mechanical phenomena ... still as obvious ?

[Jikx]

The question is, 'Did it happen if noone saw it?' To which the answer is: Of course.

But the question to that answer is, how would you know if no-one saw it?

[Evo]

But the question to that answer is, how would you know if no-one saw it?So, if you question if the tree even fell, what's the point of wondering what could prevent it from making a sound?

[loseyourname]

What is the point of wasting time discussing it? What good does it do? What does this kind of discussion have to do with advancing science or understanding? What could possibly be a benefit from wondering about something like this? Unless you can show me scientific evidence that a tree could fall in a forest and NOT make a sound, it's nonsense.

Why not ask, if the sun is shining, but we're blind, is there still light? Uhm, yes, we just can't see it.

Well, the question was originally formulated to get the asker to question whether sound is really only longitudinal waves propogated through a medium, or whether sound is actually the subjective perception created in the mind by the impact of these waves on a sensory device capable of detecting them.

If you go with the latter definition, then the tree makes no sound if no one is present to hear it. Apparently the dictionaries you've found do not go with this definition.

[Evo]

Well, the question was originally formulated to get the asker to question whether sound is really only longitudinal waves propogated through a medium, or whether sound is actually the subjective perception created in the mind by the impact of these waves on a sensory device capable of detecting them.

If you go with the latter definition, then the tree makes no sound if no one is present to hear it. Apparently the dictionaries you've found do not go with this definition.Yeah, I know, and this is one of the problems I have with "modern philosophy".

[Poetic dreamer]

I had become dismayed when this thread devolved into a physics debate :frown:

This was led by the poster "Evo." (who seemed like an intelligent and knowledgable person, by the way)

It's just that this is a PHILOSOPHY forum, and sometimes the obvious, common-sense answer is neither the best one nor the one that's most conducive to discussion.

At least posters like "PerennialII" understood the point I was trying to make.

So can we please go back to my original post ?

P.S. - you are free to consider the possibility that I'm just a snot-nosed teen who doesn't know anything he's talking about :wink:

[rygar]

evo, by some of the definitions you just linked to, the tree does NOT make a sound!

ie

The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

i don't think anyone would argue that there aren't sound waves emitted, but only whether the definition of 'sound' is related to the definition of 'to hear', or whether it is not.

personally, by the definition given above, i don't think it would make a sound. there are many other waves being propogated throughout the universe, but without a perception being simulated in one's consciousness, they only exist as waves.

x-ray waves don't "make an x-ray", because we have no such biological capability. sound waves only "make a sound" because we have the capability to do so. i think "not being able to hear a sound" and "not hearing a sound" are equivalent in this scenario.

as for the initial post, i disagree with your conclusion.

i think linguistics and grammar can account for this. if what you say is true, it would be impossible to ever read a sentence. the same would be true for speaking a sentence. by our intuitions, we know that this is impossible. therefore we construct our definitions around what we are trying to convey. by using the present continuous tense, you are implying the the action occurs at the present moment and continues to occur, with no indication of when it will stop.

thus, at the very least, the sentence is true at the point at which your brain interprets the punctuation mark (.)

and i think this is exactly what grammar wants to convey! there are no claims that the sentence will be true after you have finished reading it, or before you had started. i think the flaw in your argument comes from the idea that we are only able to have a single instance of time in which the actions are taking place, but tense allows us to span actions over a period of time.

sorry if that's a cop-out answer. there are some flaws in my argument, but i think it's on the right track. of course, it's completely up to interpretation.

[DaveC426913]

Well, I read the sentence from the rollover summary text on the main page, thus I was able to read the sentence without having clicked, and thus, without it being true in the first place.

[cronxeh]

this thread reminds me of the viennese mathematician Kurt Godel, who also stated that there are curious paradoxes in logic. for example, consider the statement "This sentence is false." If the sentence is true, then it follows that it is false. If the sentence is false, then the sentence is true. Or consider the statement "I am a liar." Then I am a liar only if I tell the truth. Godel then formulated the statement "This sentence cannot be proved true." If the sentence is correct, than it cannot be proved to be correct.


Unless its a system or set of sentences, its not even appropriate to speculate

If you say "This sentence is false" then you have just defined it - The sentence is false, but if you have "This sentence is false. I am a liar" -- now you have a system of 2 sentences, and a few possibilities:

1. the sentence you said is false, and you didnt lie
2. the sentence you said is true, and it was false, and you lied

3. the sentence you said is true as a definition, and has nothing to do with the fact that you lie
3. the sentence you said is false as a definition, and has nothing to do with the fact that you lie

It depends on which sentence is dependable on the other sentence - which variable you hold and which you analyse

[one_raven]

Saying "This statement is false" makes no valid claim at all, so there is no paradox.
The statement is meaningless if it does not make a claim that can be scrutinized for truth, falsity or even validity.
Therefore it is nothing more than a silly pointless play on words that Godel came up with, apparently when he was high.

Saying that it represents a paradox, or even a problem of any sort, is akin to saying the statement, "God exists, yet he does not exist." somehow represents valid paradox of any sort. Of course it doesn't represent a paradox because I did not support either assertion, therefore the statement is meaningless.

It's absurd that people put forth so much thought and effort in such a silly waste of time.