Anime Explains the Epimenides Paradox

I just Stumbled onto the related Pinocchio Paradox.

I've long felt that 'This page is intentionally left blank' is Epimenedes-esque. :)

In what language did I write the description of this video?

You seem to have written it in English, a language that offers no protections against paradox inducing self reference.

Video may be a wee bit longer than needed to get the point across. And by wee bit, I mean you could cut 7.5 minutes off of it, and it runs for 7:40.

I've always (after a fun paper on this!) thought of this in modal terms. Self-referential statements are not truths about the world; they're truths about ill-defined universes. "This statement is false" doesn't refer to anything; it's its own little world, and consequently truth has no meaning.

Similarly, "This statement is true" really doesn't provide any information. What if it's a false statement? Is there a difference? How can we tell? It's its own self-referential world, and it's unclear what truth even means in that little world, though it's very clear that it does not make the least bit of difference in any world I care about.

Someone should make a YTMND of it.

To what extent is the paradox really solved? Can someone who understands the proof more fully comment on this?

This solution to the paradox say that the context shifts... "this statement is false" can be true if whatever "this statement" is referring to is false; in other words you have nested meanings (type hierarchies) where the whole 4-word sentence is true (meta-meaning) because it is referring to a statement (in this case itself) that is false in a given context.

Seems a bit unsatisfying to me. They've redefined the meaning of the sentence so that it now makes sense -- but have they really addressed the original paradox or just explained it away?

By the way, Godel's incompleteness theorem does not rely on the paradoxical aspect of the Liar Paradox to be undecidable. The statement p is undecidable in the given theory it is referring to, even though it is not paradoxical:

p = "This statement cannot be proven in the given formal theory"

FYI: the middle 6-7 minutes can be safely skipped (unless I'm missing the point somehow).

Most of the video either made no sense or went over my head. If it's the former, recommend against watching.

Bonus bonus problem: why did you put an abstract break if there's no content following it?