Talk:Quine's paradox

message: Quine's Paradox is closely related to the halting problem, a fundamental result from computer science.  I think it may clear things up a bit about the self reference is one realizes that it is not so much the presence of self-reference in a language that leads to this kind of paradox, but the meaning of the operation that is being defined.
If I told you that from this point on, "Do the opposite of what you were told," what would you then do if at some point in the series of commands I told you to "Do the opposite of what you were told."  You would start doing what I literally told you again right?
But what if I told you to "If I tell you 'Do the opposite of what you were told' then do the opposite of what you were told."  There is no self-reference in this sentence, if you do not believe me then rephrase the 'Do the opposite of what you were told' to be some other sentence that means the same thing, like 'Do something contradictory to what I tell you.'
In other words, it isn't the exact self reference in the language or words of the language, but it is in the semantics.  The words 'Do the opposite of what you were told' once heard and understood and then applied to another command that once understood means the same thing leads to an infinite loop.
It is possible to do this on a computer without self reference in the text of a computer program, however the meaning of the program would basically be instructions on how to build an infinite loop or recursion from the various parts.
At least, I think that is what Quine was trying to get at.  Ridding a language of direct self-reference would not get rid of these sorts of problems because it is always possible for some other part of the language to piece together some other aspects of the language in ways that cause them to reference each other.
One could say that the quotation of a sentence "compiles" into a predicate for that sentence.
--74.194.27.5 (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A View From Computer Science

message: Would this paradox be related to the one arrived at if you say 'Nothing is impossible'?  (If nothing is impossible, then being impossible is impossible.  It's similar if you say nothing is certain.)  Also, does this paradox have a name (or is it even a paradox)? MagiMaster 08:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are related; deep down this, your statement, and many other paradoxes are just fancy elaborations on the Liar's Paradox: "This statement is false."  Although (POV warning) Quine's is my favorite version.  Baccyak4H 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related paradox? 

message: Why "Quine's Paradox" and not "Quine's paradox"? -- Dominus 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title capitaliztion

message: I am having trouble in finding a reference on "Quine's Paradox" as mentioned in this article other than GEB (and articles citing it or this wiki page), so that is probably a name coined by the author of GEB. It seems that there is another paradox in philosophy that is called "Quine's Paradox". If you know any sources other than GEB (or articles citing GEB or this wiki page as reference) for calling that sentence Quine's Paradox, please add it to the article, otherwise this article is missing citations. 128.100.3.41 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference