I was doing some very, super, light reading on self reference.
It seems to me that the statement
- nothing that I say is true
- cannot be understood with the T-schema;
- is self referential.
Heath argues that analyzing this sentence using T-schema generates the sentence fragment—“everything that Bill believes”—on the righthand side of the Logical biconditional.
Is that the case?
It also seems the sentence is both:
- ungrounded, as it can't be categorically true; but
- not analytic, because if it is false we can't tell from the sentence alone.
I wondered if this meant the sentence could be true, but that this cannot be formalised into any "truth value".