Ultimately yes that is the resolution, but the point is that you usefully get there not by playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole arguing that each variant is still somehow incoherent or has a truth value though some weird quirk of the English tense used, but rather by switching from a blacklist system to a whitelist system: everything is presumed invalid unless build up from axiomatic building blocks.
I don’t get it. The reason I say “The logical claim represented by this sentence is false” isn’t coherent is because there is no end when trying to understand that sentence/claim.
“The logical claim” refers to “The logical claim represented by this sentence is false” and trying to understand the referent would lead to same process where you endlessly try to understand the subject. Since it can never be understood it is incoherent. Do you see? I didn’t do any building up from axiomatic building blocks.
“The logical claim represented by this sentence is false” is incoherent.
Ultimately yes that is the resolution, but the point is that you usefully get there not by playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole arguing that each variant is still somehow incoherent or has a truth value though some weird quirk of the English tense used, but rather by switching from a blacklist system to a whitelist system: everything is presumed invalid unless build up from axiomatic building blocks.
I don’t get it. The reason I say “The logical claim represented by this sentence is false” isn’t coherent is because there is no end when trying to understand that sentence/claim.
“The logical claim” refers to “The logical claim represented by this sentence is false” and trying to understand the referent would lead to same process where you endlessly try to understand the subject. Since it can never be understood it is incoherent. Do you see? I didn’t do any building up from axiomatic building blocks.