It is commmonly said that "This sentence is false" is a paradox because if it is true, it follows that it's false, and if it is false, it follows that it's true, and both are contradictions. But "This sentence is true" is just as meaningless, without such contradictions. If we say "This sentence is true" is meaningless because of an infinite regress of self-reference, then isn't "This sentence is false" meaningless for the same reason, which makes all the business about paradoxes superfluous?Alternatively we could say that "This sentence is true" is meaningless because there is a lack of content, nothing it refers to by which we could determine whether it is indeed true. The same goes for "This sentence is false". And in this case we don't even need infinite self-reference to explain the meaninglessness or incoherence of the sentence - the actual issue is the use of the concept of "truth" within a sentence.
>>16384345nobody uses those alone, I mean they do, but its more common like"the sentence on the other side is false""the sentence on the other side is true"
>>16384345This argument is often used by those with nothing proactive to say
Observation is relative to the absolute, reality is not boolean
>>16384345This was always really dumb because no one even thinks of using human language as mathematical syntax. We say shit all the time thats paradoxical and confusing, but apparently we break math by "This statement is false"?
>>16384345The reason that all variations of this are stupid and a waste of time is that they assume all narrators are sincere and not simply trolling you. There is nothing paradoxical whatsoever about unreliable narration.
