This is only true if we have insufficient knowledge to make a quick decision with reason or are not quick at the reasoning process.
We always have insufficient information, working through an algorithm composed almost solely of various shortcuts. Cognitive shortcuts are, quite literally, the only way we are able to think about things at all - at the very least, we approximate, and more foten than not we make significant assumptions and fill in large gaps for even basic decisions.
This works, because those shortcuts worked in the past and things that worked in the past tend to keep working, but there is nothing "logical" about it. Perfect logic is impossible in regards to making decisions relating to the real world, because our very minds are running on imperfect hardware. Luckily for us, imperfect logic, or "reason", is still an incredibly useful shortcut in aiding us to reach our goals. Emotion is the same. Both are, ultimately, cognitive tools.
I'll bite, here is my true statement:
Given a statement that is trivially true, Griffin will prove it false.
I honestly don't think a future type prediction can really be considered a trivially true statement. I wouldn't call it false, simple... undetermined? Invalid? There's not really much logic there guaranteeing I'll take any sort of action, anyways.
Even were it correct, I could choose to parse this statement with a logical system that doesn't preclude the possibility of statements being both true and false simultaneously. Doing so wouldn't be particularly useful for any purpose other than dealing with statements like yours, of course.
Huh? You stating meaningless and thoughtless things while pretending there is depth.
I currently have 5 digits on each hand, this is true. This is Truth. Tell me in which 'context' this is not true.
I have no particular reason to believe you. There are people in the world without five digits on each hand. Believing such a statement requires several levels of assumptions and beliefs. If we're ignoring the value of default axioms and only working with that with which we can logically arrive (a position which my post was meant to point out the absurdity of), there are multiple ways we can go about showing your statement is false.
First: The assumptions that all your fingers are digits. Change that to leave out thumbs, as mentioned previously, and we're golden. Second, and perhaps more apt, remove the assumption that you have any desire to tell us the truth. Replace it with the assumption that you intend to deceive us. There are people in the world without 5 fingers per hand, after all - if you are one of them, and lying to us for whatever reason, your statement is obviously false. Do we have any particular reason to believe this? No. But we have no logical
reason to believe you are being honest, either. We have insufficient information to tell. The most we can say is that, based on experience, your statement is likely to be true.
Ah, but perhaps you mean from your own personal point of view? That gets a bit trickier, because the fundamental emotions and axioms of the truth of personal experience are hard to counter. But, for a moment, think - are you aware of the existence of people who believe they have more or fewer limbs than we perceive them to have? They exist. You can look them up. You are making the inherently emotional decision that your own personal observations are faithful representations of the world, despite the many pieces of evidence that our senses are flawed, and the evidence that there are other people in the world who do not share your perceptions
There is no logical way to derive the fact that you have 5 fingers without the base trust in the functioning of your senses - which, lacking any sort of outside context, precludes the ability for you to apply logic to it. See the classic "brain in a jar" scenario - a scenario in which you have no digits at all, I might add. But we don't even need to go that far.Who is to say that you "have" these digits at all?
Why do they belong to you? Why are they YOUR hands and not, for example, your parents? And this is all for a very basic decision.
Or, at an even more basic level, we can assume the application of a different logical system with different logical rules, and render your statement either meaningless or false, as we wish. If we drop the assumption that our logical system needs to be consistent, for example, your trivially true statement can easily become trivially false as well as trivially true at the same time.
Anyways, I'm probably rambling here. My point is - yes, this is all fucking meaningless, I'm not "pretending it has depth" because we, as humans, tend do the smart thing and not wait for logic to hand us meaning, because it won't. Logic can tell us one thing and one thing alone:
"If our premises are true (including the premise that both our logic is valid and our logical system is sound), then these other things are true"
That's it. It can never be used to determine the truth of anything in a vacuum - only in terms of the truth of the other things, and only within the scope created by the logical system.