3 Comments
User's avatar
Steve Patterson's avatar

I can't see the post because it's for paid members. I am familiar with Huemer though and have interviewed him a couple times on my show. I read his book about infinity, and it's not good. He does see some of the problems with infinity, to his credit, but he's not logically consistent about it, so he just makes up new categories of good and bad infinity. iirc he was also confused about some basic concepts in set theory and admitted he'd never once spoken with a mathematician about the topic.

Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

It's not just that the liar's paradox refers to itself, but that the evaluation of it as a proposition, true or false, depends on its evaluation as a true or false proposition. Since it does not have a stable evaluation, it is not a proposition. But then the problem arises, how do we know whether we have eliminated this troublesome sort of non-proposition from an argument? I hope it should be obvious, ... I hope? At first glance, the paradox seems odd but harmless. Are there any more subtle non-propositions lying in ambush for us?

Expand full comment