This is a little tricky. Doesn't it depend on exactly what we mean by "say 'p'"? — J

As you wrote:

I can say “It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table” but this adds nothing to the proposition ‛There are a hundred thalers on the table’. — J

Yes, the expression "p is true" says no more than "p".

I agree that "says no more" is a figure of speech, but is intended to have the same meaning as your "adds nothing".

Consider the sentence "there are a hundred thalers on the table is true".

Because the word "true" is internal to the sentence, it cannot be making a judgment or assertion about either i) the other parts of the sentence it is within or ii) the sentence as a whole.

For the word "true" to be making a judgment or assertion about the sentence "there are a hundred thalers on the table" it will have to be external, such as "it is true that "there are a hundred thalers on the table"".

In other words, a sentence cannot be "self-conscious", using another figure of speech.

So this seems like quite a parallel between “truth” and “existence, — J

As I see it, truth is about the relation between different things, and these different things exist.

The expression "p is true" says no more than "p"
We can't meaningfully say "p" is true, because there is no relation, but we can say "p" is true IFF p

We can't meaningfully say "x", but we can say "x exists"

For example, "there are a hundred thalers on the table" is true IFF there are a hundred thalers on the table.

Where "there are a hundred thalers on the table" exists in language and a hundred thalers on the table exists in the world.

What I'm trying to pin down is whether anyone has addressed specifically the apparent parallel between "Existence is not a predicate" and "Truth is not a predication." Does it ring any bells? — J

I agree that the following doesn't help in knowing which philosophers addressed the problem, but is just a couple of random thoughts.

"A hundred thalers exist"
In the expression "A hundred thalers are heavy", what is the predicate "are heavy" referring to?

The predicate "are heavy" cannot be referring to the expression in language "A hundred thalers", as an expression cannot be heavy. The predicate "are heavy" must be referring to a hundred thalers in the world.

"A hundred thalers are heavy" is true IFF a hundred thalers are heavy.

Similarly, in the expression in language "A hundred thalers exist", the predicate "exist" is not referring to the expression in language "A hundred thalers", which would be a redundancy, but is referring to a hundred thalers in the world.

"A hundred thalers exist" is true IFF a hundred thalers exist.

IE, the expression "a hundred thalers exist" is a valid statement.

"It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table"
If I told someone that "there are a hundred thalers on the table", they may not believe me. This forces me to say "it is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table".

But in language as we don't normally use quotation marks, what I am actually saying is ""it is true that "there are a hundred thalers on the table""

IE, I am not saying "it is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table", but rather ""it is true that "there are a hundred thalers on the table"".

Can you possibly see how answering this (again) might be considered "feeding the trolls"? — bongo fury

I am making a case that your previous statement was factually wrong, and am backing my case up with additional evidence from Yannis Stephanou's book A Theory of Truth

If you think that this is being inflammatory and provocative, then I'm sorry.

I won't bother you again.

So your comments aren't helping you or RussellA to understand the passage. — bongo fury

Given ""This sentence is false" is false"

So which sentence is attributing falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself?

This topic is mentioned Yannis Stephanou in his book A Theory of Truth in chapter 1, Aspects of Paradox.

One line of reasoning that leads to contradiction relies on the schema (T)
S is true iff p.

Some versions of the liar involve falsity rather than truth.
Take the sentence (6)
(6) is false.
This sentence attributes falsity to itself.
By (T), (6) is true iff (6) is false.

From Quine, ""This sentence is false" is false"
From Stephanou, (6) is false
Therefore (6) is "This sentence is false"

From Stephanou, the sentence (6) attributes falsity to itself
Therefore, ""this sentence is false" attributes falsity to itself

From Quine, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays

"the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself".

Therefore, "this sentence is false" is the outside sentence.

This is what I read both Quine and Stephanou to be saying.

Not wanting you to waste your time on my ludicrous arguments, I will just make the following point, which seems central to your argument that a self-referential sentence can be meaningful:

Let "The Pentastring" refer to "This sentence has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

OK
===============================================================================

The Pentastring has five words, since the Pentastring is "This sentence has five words" and "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Separating into parts

IF - the Pentastring is "this sentence has five words"

Incorrect. As you have said many times on this thread, something in the world cannot be an expression in language. Using the model of "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, then "the Pentastring" exists in language and the Pentastring exists in the world.

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

The Pentastring may be named as "this sentence has five words", but the Pentastring isn't "this sentence has five words".

AND - "this sentence has five words" has five words

OK

THEN - the Pentastring has five words

Incorrect conclusion.

The following are OK:
The Pentastring may be named "this sentence has five words"
"This sentence has five words" has five words

Just because the name of the Pentastring has five words, it doesn't follow that the Pentastring itself has five words.

Just because a name for the Eiffel Tower has two words, it doesn't follow that the Eiffel Tower itself has two words.
===============================================================================

"The Pentastring has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

"The Pentastring has five words" is not how "the Pentastring" has been defined.

Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

For the sake of argument, using sentence instead of string

Then "the Pentastring is this sentence has five words"

Therefore, "the Pentastring is this sentence has five words" is true IFF the Pentastring is this sentence has five words.

Also, "the Pentastring has five words" is true IFF the Pentastring has five words

But, the Pentastring is this sentence has five words is not the same as the Pentastring has five words.

Therefore, "the Pentastring has five words" is not how "the Pentastring" has been defined.
===============================================================================

"This sentence has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Same problem as before.

And I may stipulate that in the context of my post, "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words"...On what basis is it claimes "This sentence has five words" not meaningful? — TonesInDeepFreeze

On the basis of infinite recursion.

Self-referential case
In the self-referential case, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words".
But we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence contains five words".
Therefore, "this sentence, the sentence "the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words", contains five words".
Ad infinitum. Infinite recursion. Therefore meaningless. — RussellA

In " "this sentence is false" is false", "this sentence is false" is the inside sentence — bongo fury

In the expression ""this sentence is false" is false", what does Quine mean by "outside sentence".

Does he mean "this sentence is false", or does he mean ""this sentence is false" is false"

Quine says that the outside sentence is no longer attributing falsity to itself.

I would have thought that the sentence "this sentence is false" is no longer attributing falsity to itself.

What would it mean for the sentence ""this sentence is false" is false" to be no longer attributing falsity to itself?

No. Quine doesn't say that, and he doesn't say anyone else has said that. — bongo fury

Quine said:

But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox.

I interpret Quine as saying that in the expression "this sentence is false" is false, the outside sentence is "this sentence is false". It seems to me that Quine is saying that there is no paradox because the outside sentence is not referring to itself but to something other than itself. Quine is saying that there is a hierarchy of references.

IE, "this sentence is false" is not being used self-referentially.

How do you interpret what Quine is saying?

here's Quine — bongo fury

The professor looks at a Geography student's essay and says to the student: this sentence is false.
The student had written "Paris is in Germany".
As Quine might say, there is no paradox with the professor saying "Paris is in Germany" is false.

The professor looks at a Philosophy student's essay and says to the student: this sentence is false.
The student had written "this sentence is false", referring to the sentence "Quine was born in 1908".
As Quine says, in this situation, there's no paradox with "this sentence is false" is false
There's no paradox because, as Quine says, "this sentence is false" is referring to something other than itself.

But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox. Quine

The paradox arises when "this sentence is false" is not referring to something other than itself. IE, when it is self-referential.

Wrong. "This sentence has five words" is "This sentence has five words". They are the same linguistic object. As RussellA himself says, the wording is identical. So they are the same sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Picking up on just one of your 33 comments:

Mary in 1975 in New York said "This sentence has five words".
Rafael in 1923 in Rio de Janeiro said "This sentence has five words"

Just because the wording is identical, this doesn't mean that they are the same sentence, the same linguistic object. In part, because we don't know what sentence they are referring to.

However, I don't want to waste any more of your time if my arguments are dialectically incompetent.

But that's not fair to the inquiry, since the fact that one dialectically incompetent poster can't come up with a good argument for his claim should not be taken to entail that no one can. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It’s really simple; the self-referential sentence “this sentence contains five words” is meaningful. I understand what it means, you understand what it means, and everyone else understands what it means. It’s not some foreign language or random combination of words. And we can count the words in the sentence to determine that it’s true. — Michael

Question: how do you avoid the problem of infinite recursion in a self-referential sentence?

"This sentence contains five words".

Non self-referential case
Let "this sentence" refer to the sentence "this sentence contains five words"

Then, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words". This is meaningful.

Note that the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is not the same sentence as "this sentence contains five words", even though the wording is identical. These are two completely different sentences.

Note that the truth of the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is independent of the truth of the sentence "this sentence contains five words".

Self-referential case
In the self-referential case, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words".
But we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence contains five words".
Therefore, "this sentence, the sentence "the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words", contains five words".
Ad infinitum. Infinite recursion. Therefore meaningless.

Note that in the self-referential case, the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is the same sentence.

It’s meaningful even when it’s referring to itself. — Michael

From Wikipedia -Meaning (Philosophy)

In philosophy—more specifically, in its sub-fields semantics, semiotics, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and metasemantics—meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify".

If "this sentence contains five words" is referring to itself, then "this sentence contains five words" means that "this sentence contains five words".

In other words, "X" means "X".

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself.

I agree that "X" means "X", but how can "X" be described as a meaningful sentence?

I maintain that barbers are people who shave people who are in the world.......................Therefore, if a barber tries to shave himself, there is an inherent contradiction. — bongo fury

Makes sense to me. I've never understood any validity in the barber paradox.

The expression ‘secondary employment’, also commonly referred to as ‘double jobbing’, simply describes a situation where an employee takes on a second job.

During the day, someone works as an engineer in an engineering works. In order to pay their rent, during the evening they work in a cafe as a barista.

No one would call someone who serves you coffee an engineer.

No one would call someone welding machinery a barista.

As you say, being a barber is what someone does, not what they are.

The redundancy theory of truth usually applies to all sentences, whether it be "this sentence contains five words" or "it is raining". Seems strange to only apply it to self-referential sentences. — Michael

Not the case.

I did include the non self-referential example:

To say that "a horse is a horse" is true is saying no more than "a horse is a horse".

I also included Frege's 1918 comment:

It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "it is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth.

===============================================================================

But even then, there's still nothing problematic with the sentence "this sentence contains five words". It is meaningful, despite your protestations to the contrary. — Michael

I totally agree that there is nothing problematic with the sentence "this sentence contains five words", and can indeed be a meaningful sentence.

As long as "this sentence contains five words" is not referring to itself.

Which sentence were you referring to when you made these statements? — EricH

1) "this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words

We don't know what "this sentence" is referring to, but, for example, it could be referring to the sentence "this house is grey in colour", "this book is important", "this animal is a cat" or "this sentence has five words".

Suppose it is referring to the sentence "this sentence has five words".

In language is the sentence "This sentence has five words"

I see on my screen the following shapes - This sentence has five words - which I recognize as the sentence "This sentence has five words".

2) This sentence has five words. Not true? Yes, true.

I am using the model of "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

Not being in quotation marks - this sentence has five words - is something that exists in the world, for example, on my screen, and is true in the sense that I can see it on my screen, rather than not see it on my screen.

In context we do know. — Michael

I agree that in the context of a thread on the Liar Paradox, the discussion is about can a self-referential sentence have any meaning.

If you want to be explicit, then: The self-referential sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true. — Michael

Truth depends on a correspondence between language and the world

To be even more explicit, if in the sentence "this sentence contains five words" the expression "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains five words", can the sentence "this sentence contains five words" have a truth-value, or is it meaningless.

You are arguing that "this sentence contains fifty words" has a truth-value.

I am arguing that any concept of truth in a self-referential expression is redundant.

My belief is that an expression in language can only have a truth-value if it corresponds with something in the world.

I accept Tarski's paradigm for defining truth, ie, Tarski's Semantic Theory of Truth:
"snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

It can be argued what exactly this world is, but whatever the world is, it is external to a linguistic expression.

In the self-referential sentence, as the sentence is referring to itself, it cannot be referring to any world that exists outside of itself.

If a self-referential sentence is not referring to anything in the world, then it can have no truth-value.

In cases of linguistic self-reference, the concept of truth is redundant

1) "This sentence contains five words" is true IFF "this sentence contains five words".
The word true is redundant in that:
"This sentence contains five words" IFF "this sentence contains five words"

In the Wikipedia article Redundancy Theory of Truth

Gottlob Frege was probably the first philosophical logician to express something very close to the idea that the predicate "is true" does not express anything above and beyond the statement to which it is attributed. In 1892, he wrote:

One can, indeed, say: "The thought that 5 is a prime number is true." But closer examination shows that nothing more has been said than in the simple sentence "5 is a prime number." The truth claim arises in each case from the form of the declarative sentence, and when the latter lacks its usual force, e.g., in the mouth of an actor upon the stage, even the sentence "The thought that 5 is a prime number is true" contains only a thought, and indeed the same thought as the simple "5 is a prime number."[1]

In 1918, he argued:

It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "it is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth.[2][3]

To say that "a horse is a horse" is true is saying no more than "a horse is a horse".

To say that "this sentence contains fifty words" is true is saying no more than "this sentence contains fifty words".

To say that "x" is true is saying no more than "x".

Truth only enters when self-reference disappears and the world appears:
"x" is true IFF x

The words "has" and "contain" have identical meaning in the context of this discussion. — EricH

I agree.

Conclusion? "This sentence contains five words" is true. QED — EricH

No one would say that "this house contains five rooms" is true without first knowing which house is being referred to.

No one would say that "this book contains important knowledge" is true without first knowing
which book is being referred to.

Therefore, how can any one say that "this sentence contains five words" is true if no one knows which sentence is being referred to?

For example, so far, we have three sentences:

1) The sentence "this house contains five rooms", which happens to contain five words.
2) The sentence "this book contains important knowledge", which happens to contain five words
3) The sentence "this sentence contains five words", which happens to contain five words.

The sentence "this sentence contains five words" isn't telling us which sentence is being referred to.

Therefore, how do we know that it is true?

Do you think each of them is dependent on each other, or should we look at them individually? — javi2541997

Perhaps the following:

I know I see the colour red independently of any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes I may have towards sunsets.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without having thoughts or attitudes towards them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having an attitude towards them.
I cannot have an attitude towards sunsets without thinking about them, having beliefs about them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having a belief in them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without knowing about them.

IE, I can know something like the colour red without having any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes towards it. But if I have a belief, thought or attitude towards something like a sunset, then I must know something about it.

The self-referential sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true because it contains five words.........................This is incredibly straightforward. — Michael

I wish it were.

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

The sentence "this house is very tall" contains five words.
The sentence "this sentence contains five words" also contains five words.

"This house is very tall" is true IFF this house is very tall, where this house is referring to, or pointing at, a particular house in the world.
Similarly, "this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words, where this sentence is referring to, or pointing at, a particular sentence in the world.

It is not correct to say that the sentence "this house is very tall" is true because it contains five words.
Similarly, it is not correct to say that the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true because it contains five words.

"This house is very tall" is true IFF this house is very tall, not because the sentence "this house is very tall" contains five words.
Similarly, "this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words, not because the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words.

The subjective content of the sentence "this sentence contains five words" cannot determine the objective form of itself, ie, that it contains five words.

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? — Noble Dust

There is also knowing. When looking at a sunset, I know that I see the colour red, I believe my seeing the colour red was caused by the sunset, I think that sunsets happen every day and I have a positive attitude towards them.

Knowing is more fundamental than believing, believing is more fundamental that thinking and thinking is more fundamental than having an attitude.

It's grounded in that we can count how many words are in the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words". There are five words, not fifty, and so the sentence is false. — Michael

Exactly. The sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" in order to have a truth value must be grounded in the world.

"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF this sentence contains fifty words.

The sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" in order to have a truth value cannot be grounded in itself. The expression "this sentence" within "this sentence contains fifty words" cannot be referring to itself, ie, it cannot be referring to "this sentence contains fifty words".

All I'm trying to say is that an expression that self-refers cannot be grounded in the world, and if not grounded in the world cannot have a truth value.

Form and content

I see on my computer screen the following shapes – this sentence contains fifty words.

I recognize these as words, part of a grammatical sentence, having the meaning "this sentence contains fifty words"

I can also see that on my computer screen that there are five words.

The subjective content of these words is "this sentence contains fifty words"

The objective form of these words is that there are five of them.

Subjective content and objective form are linked by:
"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF this sentence contains fifty words.

The word "truth" in the following would be redundant:
"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF "this sentence contains fifty words"

"this sentence contains five words" is grounded and is true.
"this sentence contains fifty words" is grounded and is false.
"this sentence is false" is ungrounded and is neither true nor false. — Michael

I agree with you that if the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is grounded in the world then it can have a truth value, and it is false.

For example:
"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
"This sentence contains fifty words" is true IFF this sentence contains fifty words.

Given the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", whether it has a truth value or not all depends on what "this sentence" is referring to.

I have been trying to make the point that if "this sentence" refers to "this sentence has fifty words" then there is no grounding in the world and there can be no truth value.

I may be wrong, but you seemed to suggest that "this sentence" does refer to "this sentence has fifty words" when you said:

I do know that. It refers to itself, it contains five words, and so it doesn’t contain fifty words. — Michael

My question is, if the expression "this sentence" within "this sentence contains fifty words" is referring to itself, ie referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", then how can there be any grounding in the world?

I do know that. It refers to itself, it contains five words, and so it doesn’t contain fifty words. — Michael

In the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people", we don't normally think that "this ferry" is referring to the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people". We normally think that it is referring to a ferry in the world.

So why would we think that "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words". It seems more likely that "this sentence" is referring to another sentence.
===============================================================================

They are discussing the liar paradox. We are not discussing the liar paradox. We are discussing the sentences "this sentence contains five words" and "this sentence contains fifty words". — Michael

We are discussing self-referential expressions, of which the Liar Paradox is an example.

From the IEP article on Liar Paradox

The Liar Paradox is an argument that arrives at a contradiction by reasoning about a Liar Sentence. The Classical Liar Sentence is the self-referential sentence: This sentence is false.

===============================================================================

From the SEP article on self-reference:... self-reference is not a sufficient condition for paradoxicality. The truth-teller sentence “This sentence is true” is not paradoxical, and neither is the sentence “This sentence contains four words” (it is false, though) — Michael

In language is the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words".

In language is the sentence "X"

The only means of knowing the truth value of "X" is by comparing it to the world, ie, by grounding it in the world.

From the Wikipedia article on the Liar Paradox

Kripke proposes a solution in the following manner. If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.

This is why "X" is true IFF X, where "X" is in language and X is in the world.

An expression in language that referred to another expression in language, such as "this sentence" referring to "this sentence has fifty words", cannot be grounded in the world, and if not grounded in the world, can have no truth value,

As regards the SEP article.

In language, meaning is often inferred. If I said "Paris is cool", the listener might infer that I meant "Paris is an excellent city to visit as a tourist".

Similarly, if I said "this sentence contains fifty words", the listener may infer that I meant that this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words.

I agree that if the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean that this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words, then this is not paradoxical and is false.

However, we are not discussing what the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean, we are discussing what it literally means.

And because not grounded in the world, if "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", it has no truth-value and is meaningless.

It is quite possible you and Tones went through this exact point, but honestly if I read through all 8 pages I might develop dementia before I even hit middle age. — Lionino

At least you have middle age to look forward to.

But you weren't talking about the liar paradox. You were talking about the sentences "this sentence contains five words" and "this sentence contains fifty words". These two sentences are meaningful, with the first being true and the second being false. — Michael

You say that the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is false.

But you don't know that. It all depends on which sentence "this sentence" is referring to.

In the same way, we don't know whether the sentence "this ferry contains fifty people" is true or false, if we don't know which ferry is being referred to.

Similarly, we don't know whether the sentence "this idea contains fifty thoughts" is true or false, if we don't know which idea is being referred to.

If "this sentence" is referring to the sentence "The Eiffel Tower is a lattice tower on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France. It is named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, whose company designed and built the tower from 1887 to 1889. Nicknamed "La dame de fer", it was constructed as the centrepiece of the 1889 World's Fair" then this sentence does have fifty words.

If "this sentence" is referring to the sentence "The Eiffel Tower is a lattice tower" then this sentence doesn't have fifty words.

If "this sentence" is referring to itself, ie, "this sentence contains fifty words", then both the SEP and IEP discuss the problems of self-referential expressions.

The SEP article on the Liar Paradox starts with the sentence "The first sentence in this essay is a lie"

The IEP article Liar Paradox talks about "this sentence is a lie"

But there is insufficient information within the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" to know which sentence "this sentence" is referring to.

As we don't know which sentence "this sentence" is referring to, we cannot know whether the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is true, false or meaningless.

That you blatantly skip this point over and over is intellectual dishonesty. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Au revoir.

No it’s not. — Michael

That's why there is a SEP article on the Liar Paradox.
===============================================================================

No it doesn’t. It contains five words and so is false. — Michael

I agree that my statement was false. But is was meaningful, unlike the Liar Paradox, where a part of language refers to itself.

1. This sentence contains five words.
2. This sentence contains fifty words.
(1) is true and (2) is false. It's not complicated. I don't understand the problem you have. — Michael

The problem is, in 2) for example, what exactly is "this sentence" referring to?

If "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", then this is a case of self-reference, and being a case of self-reference is meaningless.

In that event, this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words.

But we have been told that "this sentence" refers to "this sentence contains fifty words"

We therefore know that this sentence, ie the sentence "ie, the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words", contains fifty words.

But we have been told that "this sentence" refers to "this sentence contains fifty words"

Ad infinitum.

That is my problem.
===============================================================================

1. It is raining.
2. "it is raining" is true iff it is raining.
(1) and (2) do not mean the same thing. (1) is true iff it is raining but (2) is true even if it isn't raining. — Michael

Agree, 1) and 2) don't mean the same thing.

1) It is raining is true IFF it is raining. The word "true" is redundant. If it is raining then it is raining. This is an example of the law of identity where something is equal to itself.

2) "It is raining" is true IFF it is raining. This is meaningful.

Yes? And the sentence would be false. — Michael

As regards the sentence "this sentence has fifty words" making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words:

No, it wouldn't be false, it would be meaningless, because self-referential.

"Snow is white" is making the claim that "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

"Jack is tall" is making the claim that "Jack is tall" is true IFF Jack is tall

"This sentence has fifty words" is making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" is true IFF this sentence has fifty words.
In language is "this sentence has fifty words".
In the world is a set of words.
If in the world there is a set of fifty words, then "this sentence has fifty words" is true
If in the world is a set of words of which there are not fifty, then "this sentence has fifty words" is not true.
There is no problem here, as meaningful.

The problem arrives when "this sentence has fifty words" is making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" is true IFF "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

This is a problem of self-reference, because "this sentence has fifty words" is referring to itself.

For example, consider "unicorns are happy" is true IFF unicorns are happy. This is meaningful. Then consider "unicorns are happy" is true IFF "unicorns are happy". This is a tautology, an example of the law of identity where a thing is identical with itself.

This is why self-reference leads to a paradox, and why expressions that self-refer are meaningless.

"This sentence has fifty words" can meaningfully refer to a sentence having fifty words, but it cannot meaningfully refer to itself.

With the sentence "Jack is tall", the sentence makes the claim that Jack is tall...................With the sentence "This sentence has five words", the sentence makes the claim that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The above is a key point of disagreement

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
"Jack is tall" is true IFF Jack is tall
"This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words

It is not the case that "this sentence has five words" is true IFF "this sentence has five words" has five words

It is true that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words, but this truth is independent of any meanings of the words within the sentence.

The meanings of the words within the sentence "this sentence has five words" play no part in the truth that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

The sentence "a b c d e" has five words, regardless of any meaning of the words "a b c d e".

The meanings of the words "a b c d e" play no part in the fact that the sentence "a b c d e" has five words

Similarly, the meanings of the words "this sentence has five words" play no part in the fact that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

As "Jack is tall" makes the claim that Jack is tall, then "this sentence has five words" makes the claim that this sentence has five words. It doesn't make the claim that "this sentence has five words" has five words.

Otherwise, the sentence "this sentence has fifty words" would be making the claim that "this sentence has fifty words" has fifty words.

"This sentence has five words" is the sentence in question. It is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Problematic.

I agree that
1) "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white
2) "New York is in France" is true IFF New York is in France
3) "This sentence has five words" is true IFF this sentence has five words

The meanings of 1) and 2) are straightforward.
The problem with 3) is what exactly are "this sentence" and (this sentence) referring to?
For clarity, using brackets to indicate the world

For example, in a non-self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "New York is in France", and (this sentence) could be referring to (New York is in France).
The non self-referential case is meaningful.

However, in a self-referential case, "this sentence" could be referring to the sentence "this sentence has five words", and (this sentence) could be referring to (this sentence has five words).
The self-referential case is meaningless.

The problem with the self-referential case, is that the content of a sentence contains no information about the form of the sentence.

The content of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that "this sentence has five words". The form of the sentence "this sentence has five words" is that the sentence "this sentence has five words" has five words.

The content of a sentence can say nothing about the form of the sentence. It cannot self-refer.

As the sentence "New York is in France" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "New York is in Paris, the sentence "this sentence has five words" says nothing about how many words are in the sentence "this sentence has five words"

I agree when you say:

"New York is in France" makes no mention of the number of words in "New York is in France". — TonesInDeepFreeze

From the same logic, "this sentence has five words" makes no mention of the number of words in "this sentence has five words". It makes no mention of the fact that "this sentence has five words" has five words.

Any similarity in expression is purely accidental. Content cannot refer to its own form.

"This sentence has five words" is the sentence in question. It is true if and only if "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Tackling your points one by one.

1) "This sentence has five words" is true IFF "this sentence has five words" has five words.

If this were the case, then it would follow that:

"New York is in France" is true IFF "New York is in France" has five words.

So, the purpose of this thread is to submit memes, not to learn how to use 'postimages.org' — javi2541997

[img]http://

Almost. I fixed it for you. — Jamal

:100:

Gifs as well. A Pandora's box has been opened. :smile:

You think Mark Twain was someone other Samuel Clemens? — TonesInDeepFreeze

My problem is:

That baby was named "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" and was Samuel Clemens — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sense and reference
"Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" both refer to the same thing in the world, although the names have a different senses, in that "Mark Twain" was an author whereas "Samuel Clemens" wasn't.

As regards reference, "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" are both referring to the same thing in the world. Let this something be both Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. In this event, Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

As regards sense, "Mark Twain" is referring to something in the world that is an author. Let this be Mark Twain. "Samuel Clemens " is referring to something in the world that isn't an author. Let this be Samuel Clemens. In this event, Mark Twain cannot be Samuel Clemens, as Mark Twain is an author and Samuel Clemens isn't

Then what would it mean to say that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens?

It would mean that names in language, such as "Mark Twain" have no sense, which would preclude any thoughts about him being an author and essayist, the father of American Literature and the greatest humourist the United States had produced.

Logical contradictions

That "Samuel Clemens" is Samuel Clemens would give rise to logical contradictions.

My assumption is, as with the expression "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, that words in quotation marks refer to something in language and words not in quotation marks refer to something in the world.

I agree that "Samuel Clemens" born in Hannibal 1835 is "Mark Twain" who wrote "Roughing It" in 1872.

To say that when something in the world is named "Samuel Clemens" then that something in the world becomes Samuel Clemens leads to problems of logic.

1) If person A, born in Hannibal, is named "Samuel Clemens" then that person becomes Samuel Clemens. If person B, born in New York is also named "Samuel Clemens" than that person also becomes Samuel Clemens. In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, in this case, that Samuel Clemens is Samuel Clemens. But this means that person A born in Hannibal is person B born in New York. Something is wrong.

2) A group of Modernists name a painting "good", meaning that the painting is good. A group of Post-Modernists name the same painting "bad", meaning that the same painting is bad. But this means that good is bad, which breaks logic.

3) Someone sees something and names it "a cat", and someone else sees the same thing and names it "a dog", this means that a cat is a dog, which is not logical.

4) There is something in Paris. It has been named "a tower" meaning that it is a tower. It has been named "an eyesore" meaning that it is an eyesore. It has also been named "beautiful", meaning that it is beautiful. Therefore the same thing is both an eyesore and beautiful. But this gives rise to a logical contradiction, as something that is an eyesore cannot be beautiful.

One could argue that whether something in the world is an eyesore or beautiful depends on the particular observer. Exactly. "Eyesores" and "beauty" exist in the mind of the observer, not the world.

Similarly, "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" exist in the mind not the world. If there were no minds, then neither "Mark Twain" nor "Samuel Clemens" would exist.

A name cannot determine what exists in the world, because if a name did determine what exists in the world, then logical contradictions would arise.

"This string has five words" was named "The Pentastring", and "This string has five words" is the Pentastring. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My assumption is, as with the expression "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, that words in quotation marks refer to something in language and words not in quotation marks refer to something in the world.

No problem that "this string has five words" was named "the Pentastring"

I agree when you say:

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then how can "this string has five words" be the Pentastring?

In the expression "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?
Possibility 2
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" has five words. Of course it's false, but per your reasoning it appears meaningful. — EricH

As I see it, in the self-referential case, where "this sentence" is referring to itself, this means that "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence".

Being self-referential, "this sentence" it is not referring to anything outside itself, which includes any words that happen to follow it, whether they are "has five words" or "is false". In fact, the expression could equally be "this sentence is on top of the mountain", "this sentence is extremely confusing" or "this sentence a b c", where a, b and c could be any words at all

Being self-referential, there is no semantic connection between "this sentence" and "a b c".

It initially seems that "this sentence", "the house" and "three mountains" are all meaningful parts of language. This is certainly the case when "the house" is referring to the house next to the river, and "three mountains" is referring to the Alps in Italy. But in the special case of self-reference where "this sentence" is referring to itself, "this sentence" may appear to be a part of language but in fact isn't. "This sentence" is just shapes on the screen.

In the self-referential case, that we see cognize a meaning in "this sentence" is accidental, in the same way that we see shapes in clouds or faces on Mars.

[img]http://

In the self-referential case, as "this sentence" is not a meaningful part of language, but just accidental shapes on the screen, it has no linguistic meaning.

You said previously that "This sentence has five words" is true. Do you still hold that position. Yes or no? — EricH

I agree that I could have been clearer in my reply.

My assumption is that if a set of words is in quotation marks, such as - "snow is white" -
then this means it is an expression in language, and if a set of words is not in quotation marks, such as - snow is white - then this is about something that exists in the world.

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white

Looking back, on page 2, the question was about the truth of the words - this sentence has five words.

The question was not about the truth of the words - "this sentence has five words".

As regards "this sentence has five words", it all depends on what "this sentence" is referring to. If it is self-referential, then it is meaningless, but if it is not self-referential and refers to something outside itself, then it is meaningful.

As regards - this sentence has five words - because not being in quotation marks, I took them as being something that exists in the world, such as on a computer screen.

I agree that something that exists in the world cannot be said to be either true or false, in that a mountain cannot be said to be either true or false, although it is true that the words - this sentence has five words - exist on the screen, otherwise I wouldn't be able to see them.

Whether "this sentence has five words" (which exists in language) is true or not depends on what "this sentence" refers to. The set of words - this sentence has five words - (which I take to exist in the world) cannot be said to be either true or false, although it is true that they exist in the world.