Today I formally considered my new questions which I’m interested in. But I think the biggest puzzle for me is to think up a puzzle.
According to my teacher said, there are three ways to get a good idea for a paper, including through the papers, which is published, through the reality, which we are experiencing, and through the technological routine. All of them have their pros and cons.
But when I think along such a way, I am reminded my first paper “Modus Ponens and its Important counteracts”. That kind of paradox really lights my passions and makes me excited. When the formal reasoning starts to show my intuition is wrong, when the careful thinking goes to reversed direction from my common sense, the really curiosity comes out.
However, what I know for now is definitely not the same as it that I wrote in my paper. Now I know logical system is not really ‘monoacidic’, but like ‘relativism’, if I am permitted to describe it in this way.
I want to create logic systems and prove some technical stuffs indeed. But research in paradoxes is more like informal logic rather than formal logic. A good example is exactly my paper mentioned above. The reason makes McGee’s example a paradox is that the truth assignment changes while we propose the premises one-by-one. But in classical logic, this cannot happen.
So I think It is not really a good idea to do paradox. The real point, I think, is in which case do we need to create a new logic system or to prove theorems.
It seems to be a good idea to get the idea from Carlson’s proof of a knowing machine.