>In any case, your attempted paradox—“This true (in bivalent logic) statement cannot be processed by the human brain”—doesn’t even work. What I mean is that if I say it’s false but can be processed, there’s nothing paradoxical there at all.
I somewhat agree. As you said you can just process it and probabilistically or empirically find out if you can process it is or not.
The statement was not precise enough:
“This true (in bivalent logic) statement cannot be deterministically processed by the human brain, but can still seen and determined to be unambiguously true by something beyond it (meaning needing no empirical confirmation).”
I was meaning to imply that, but I did not SAY that. So you are very right that it is only true in so far as that is implicitly understood, or explicitly stated.
If it is consider it could be false, you have two options, the TRUE and FALSE option with no logical option of deciding between them (regardless of your assumptions, both are logically possible a priori). But then you cannot logically decide it is false, because you would then arbitrarily reject the possibility it is true, but arbitrary rejection is not logical, it is probabilistic or assumptive, or based on free will (but again free will is free, it is not based on bivalent logic, so the truth value of the statement is independent of that).
So you get into an undecidable contradiction here logically that can only be resolved if the statement is true.
>In any case, your attempted paradox—“This true (in bivalent logic) statement cannot be processed by the human brain”—doesn’t even work. What I mean is that if I say it’s false but can be processed, there’s nothing paradoxical there at all.
I somewhat agree. As you said you can just process it and probabilistically or empirically find out if you can process it is or not.
The statement was not precise enough:
“This true (in bivalent logic) statement cannot be deterministically processed by the human brain, but can still seen and determined to be unambiguously true by something beyond it (meaning needing no empirical confirmation).”
I was meaning to imply that, but I did not SAY that. So you are very right that it is only true in so far as that is implicitly understood, or explicitly stated.
If it is consider it could be false, you have two options, the TRUE and FALSE option with no logical option of deciding between them (regardless of your assumptions, both are logically possible a priori). But then you cannot logically decide it is false, because you would then arbitrarily reject the possibility it is true, but arbitrary rejection is not logical, it is probabilistic or assumptive, or based on free will (but again free will is free, it is not based on bivalent logic, so the truth value of the statement is independent of that).
So you get into an undecidable contradiction here logically that can only be resolved if the statement is true.