Please bear with me, since I have just started working on this.
Assuming that the laws of thought apply.
The basic goal of the algorithm is to recast the statement into true or false premises and check if a true and false clashes. If there is a clash then the statement or the set of statements is/contains a paradox. This is the rule for determining if a statement or a set of statements is/contains a paradox.
When I say clash, it means that a statement upon recasting cannot be said to have both true and false attributes.
"This statement is true" is true. "This statement is false" is true.
The set of both statements is a paradoxical set.
If in a statement there is a clash between true and false statements then it is a paradoxical statement.
"This statement is false" is true
"R, which is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves, is a member of itself" is True "R is a set of all sets which are not members of themselves" is true. "R is a set of all sets which are members of themselves" is false. "R is a member of itself" is true. Collectively it cannot be true, because there is a clash.
Now, we only need to recast the statement into true and false using the "not" operator to evaluate if a statement is true or false. We can evaluate all truth values and find if there is a clash between a true and false somewhere. If there is a clash then the collective set of statements or the statement is a paradox.
I got a couple in there. Can anyone throw me a paradox where this fails? I am trying to make it even simpler. Thank you so much! I think you will need some logic to recast more complicated statements, but this should identify the simple ones.
If nothing else, could you please verify this to be correct, and let me know if there is any procedure for finding if a set of statements contains a paradox currently exists. I think the general procedure detailing a clash between true and false in a paradox is absolutely correct.
I just came to know that there is a boolean procedure for finding self reference paradoxes, but it seems to me that my method might just be slightly more efficient, since it does not require solving for the entire set of statements but can halt whenever a clash is found. It could be hard to find if the set of statements has a solution or a clash or not, in the case of Wen's paper on the same, which recasts statements as boolean statements.
I can use this to disprove strong AI. Can someone please tell me if it is already proven that a human like intelligence cannot be recreated on a Turing machine.