what would happen if pinnochio actually said "my nose i

Post Reply New Topic

So his cruse is in his mind and not some all knowing magical force around him?

No-the curse is not psychosomatic.

(Well- maybe it IS- that would be an interesting way to re interpret the story on stage or screen.)

But no...

A lie is not the same thing as a factual error.

The magic force detects deception in his mind and responds by causing his nose to grow. It doesnt check the encyclopedea brittanica to see if what he said is factually correct or not.

The curse doesnt care if he, like country singer Alan Jackson, confuses Iraq with Iran. If he told you that Bagdad was in Iran nothing would happen.

But if he told his gf that "that dress does NOT make you look heavier" then his nose would grow fast enough to knock you over.

can I ask why this is not in random discussion or PP&R?

It will stop most likely because the event is past not because is no longer lying.

As I explained in previous post the is a flaw in the everlasting statement argument, which does not fit the story. This is something that most people are overlooking. The story is his nose grows a bit (or a lot) reacting to a particular event, which is when a statement is deemed a lie.

To put it another way if he had told the truth about something then split second later that the statement could no longer be held true, and he would have known that, it does not cause is nose to grow.

This is part of the plot line
"Pinocchio says that he is always truthful and obedient. Again his nose grows longer and Pinocchio immediately tells the truth about himself, causing the nose to shrink back to normal."

Notice the word always? Significant you would think so, but his nose only grows to a set point because he is lying, that is the algorithm. Then by telling the truth it shrinks back to normal. It is reactive to a statement, not permanently bound by it.

Except that the key words in the statement are "going to" and "now", which indicates future tense and that it would happen in the immediate future. If he said "My nose is growing now" when it isn't then you have a point that he was lying and and doesn't stop being a lie because it starts growing afterwards. However, the immediate future tense indicates that his nose doesn't have to be growing at the time he's making the statement in order for it to be true, and therefore for him to be telling the truth. If he says "my nose is going to grow now" and it immediately starts growing then the statement is true and he was telling the truth.

THIS.

All the talk of tenses and what "now" means is irrelevent. A lie is not the same thing as simply being wrong. And his nose grows when he lies, not when he's wrong.

It starts growing and then stops, but it doesn't stop for the reasons you said, it stops because the algorithm is not an indefinite process.

Like I said it merely reacts to the statement after the statement it doesn't react. It doesn't matter if it is a fraction of a second later it is one statement one reaction. It only reacts to the public statements, as soon as they are made. How that is determined is subject to debate.

So after ' ....now.' It reacts only once and the delayed result is determined by the process speed. The fact that his nose is growing as a result of the algorithm doesn't cause it to react again. It doesn't mean he is making a truth.

He would have to tell a truth for that for happen, but according to the story if the operations are processed sequentially then if will grow till it reaches the required size then revert. If it is concurrent operations then things could get a bit chaotic.

It also doesn't change the status of the original statement in the eye of the event driven algorithm.

But surely, if he said it with the intent of making his nose grow and knowing that his will grow as a result of the statement saying that his nose will grow, then that would make it a truth? In that case it appears to me that it is concurrent. It's the equivalent of the liars paradox "this statement is false". The paradox seems to be there even if you take into account the intent for deception, which that algorithm supposedly does.

It is not to do with intent. It reacts to the present.

However this paradox isn't actually related to the original story in Italian, in which his nose grows when stressed especially when he lies, which implies that guilt is the driving force.