Why are paradoxes considered profound?

I think I'm with you now, but just don't know of any brand of humor that funny, I guess. I can't imagine timeless humor, I can't imagine a concept that I can never completely understand, no matter how hard I try.

So for me the litmus test for funny is just how it works the first time and the litmus test for profound is how accessible it is after multiple passes.

This is kinda like defining "beautiful" to me. More elusive with each participant, I bet.

I was taught we learn with errors not with quick success...hardly trying to solve a problem amounts to nothing even when the solution still evades us...with the solution comes simplicity and clarity profoundness is something we experience while immersed on hard work to get there...

...but it is because you understand a joke that the joke is solved just as it is true that when you can Read a paradox the paradox is pretty much solved...unless of course you are referring to some parrots parody in there...I guess I missed it...

UH.
Can we let go of the ego please? If you've got something worth saying then it should speak for itself.

I'll be back tomorrow.

well in plain English then:
...to my view analytically understanding a problem goes by increasingly learning to read it, that is, only when you get to answer it did you truly understood what it meant in the asking...a problem in logic is not a problem on lacking information on the premisses but in lacking information on how one should relate them...so it is not like asking what you are doing at this moment...

In liar´s as in most paradoxes there are only two problems to formulate:

Either the language by which the premises are bounded is defective in logic or the logic model was confronted with a gap that requires investigation...

...the normal usage of the language would read as follow:

This sentence is false
can be reduced to:
this is not a sentence

Since the paradox goes beyond the normal usage and assumes true value on the first one needs to reformulate the rules of the language for contradictory self referential statements, thus explaining when the axis are opposite and the value is qualitative (being true or false) one needs a quantitative clarification of dominant set to prevent the nullification off the problem, thus requiring an increasing strata or layer of language, and thus sustain functional truth on both layers by assigning control (contain/contained) to one of them...

(each level of language can be understood as a system or as a Universe in itself)

This formulation profoundly raises the problem on the length of Truth since it imply´s more then one Universe in relation...
...a final true value could only be asserted from the greatest set universe down, but it seams logical that there is no way on knowing in which set layer our universe can possibly be...

I think that post is a prime example of passing drivel off as something sensible by drowning it in obscure formulations and a lot of big words. Throw in bad grammar and punctuation, and it's damn near unintelligible.

Despite that, I get what you are saying, it just isn't worth hearing.

"This sentence is false" is not paradoxical. It is just nonsensical.
"This is not a sentence" is paradoxical, but it does not mean the same as "this sentence is false"

Now, commence with your nerdrage. It will only confirm my observations regarding your rhetorical style.

This formulation profoundly raises the problem on the length of Truth since it imply´s more then one Universe in relation...
...a final true value could only be asserted from the greatest set universe down, but it seams logical that there is no way on knowing in which set layer our universe can possibly be given we can only know lower level Universes...
(it very much works as dimensions do work)

In an infinite set of related Universes final true value cannot be asserted and Truth really becomes provisional or relative to a given set of layers.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

...this is not a sentence, is paradoxical ??? man, you lost it !
...you just gave a perfect example on why addressing stupid people ends up a messy business !

This (X) is not explicit, although I can see from where you get confused...
...this X is only explicit in not being a sentence...

Like I said, not a paradox, just nonsense.
Think of what "this sentence is false" means. It could mean "this sentence does not contain the necessary grammatical components to be called a sentence", which is obviously does according to the rules of grammar.
It's truth value isn't decided by any "if".

When you say "if this is true/false then..." then you are creating an axiom, divorcing the statement from it's meaning. So it's not a paradox, just an invalid axiom creating a paradox.

It works for any sentence. If I said "I am not a human being", it is clearly nonsense. I could however create an axiom, saying that "if that claim was true, it would be a paradox".

...well if you cared to properly read what I said in the post you referred I explained that the rules to self referential statements should change since the sentence is correct in plain English...And I cared to give a meaningful explanation on why it should be so...

by the way the quote is from WIKI...

It is paradoxical to state that "this is not a sentence", because it is a sentence. That's what lies do, they create paradoxes.

Like I said above, your link to wiki only shows it further that when there is a paradox, there is a flaw in the logic.

It's the same as with the example Thomas gave earlier with the law of the excluded middle. His statement; "what I'm saying right now" is not a logical proposition. The paradox only occurs when you treat it as if it were a logical proposition.

"this" is not referred to the sentence you are reading, or as you said it would be paradoxical...what it states is that for the first form there is such a this which is not a sentence the true value falls for the first part which was this sentence...its not any more self referential !

You're wrong. It's not paradoxical. It's just false.


How does it fail to be a logical proposition?

...in conventional English it does not fail as you well know !...are you glad ?

If a person walks up to you and says "what I'm saying right now is false", and then just walks away again, did he say or do something logical?

The sentence does not communicate anything of value or meaning. It is nonsense. To relate to it you have to create axioms. The "if this is true" is an axiom by which you can determine the truth value of the statement, and so is "if this is false". The only reason this sentence appears paradoxical is that the truth value isn't evident from the proposition itself, which is why it is not a logical proposition.

...there is no "if" in the formulation that´s the analyses of the sentence Cyr !

Well, it's in the analysis of the sentence the paradox happens...

One could say that a paradox is about as profound as tripping over one's own feet, because that is precisely what is happening.