also get a 30-day money back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know, and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. TFN.com Educating Investors. The following is a presentation of TFNN. Trade what you see with Larry Pezzavento toll free at 1-877-927-6648 or internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Now, Larry Pezzavento. Okay, looking good, Billy Ray, feeling good, Lewis. We're going to start out the show just a little bit different than we usually do. I've got three quotes by Johann Wolfgang von Goet. But as they say in Tarot, Indiana, it's Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. So he's going to be von Goethe today because that's all I understand. Knowing is not enough. We must apply. Willing is not enough. We must do. That's number one. And number two on the list, drum roll please. Thinking is easy. Acting is difficult. And to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Von Goethe as they say in France. And finally it says, the moment one definitely commits oneself, then provenance moves to whatever you think you can do or believe you can do, begin it. Action has magic, power and grace. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. And the most important one of all, my good friend, Mark Douglas. I get a little choked up when I read this one, folks. When you really believe that trading is simply a probability game, concepts like right or wrong, win or lose no longer have the same significance, okay? We got to remember that. Over the past all month or so we've had people come in talking about the importance of the market topping. Let me just show you what we had, folks. On September the 12th, we had Shane Smollion calling for a top. We had Jeff Huge, Alpha Insox calling for a top. Stan Hardy. Harley, a stock market letter. September 12th. Larry Williams, September 12th and also seeing the importance of the 22nd and also the 27th. And then we also had Peter Elides. And again we had also Tim Boss talking about the beautiful mercury perihelion thing that we had going. There was one other one. I swear to God, I can't remember who there was. One other guy that said something about the 12th. I can't remember it right now, but I will. Oh, someone in the room has just said, Norm Winsky. Yes, I think Winsky was in that list. Well, we're going to move Norman to the top of the list today because he's going to be our guest. He did a great job. I was just sort of pulling the old wool under his eyes as they might say. Okay, folks, I have to tell you a little joke. All right. There are two rabbis are in the synagogue and they're complaining. And one in Maury is complaining to Saul. He said, Saul, he said, I don't understand. He said, I picked the winners all the time. He said, I seem to get every single winner over and over again in the lottery, but I never win. And Saul says, Maury, Maury, you've got to buy a ticket and boys and girls, you got to buy a ticket when you want to play in the dance. And that's what you have to do when you're doing this. A few days ago, just a few days ago, way back on the 18th, and here we are in the 23rd, I posted something in here in the room that I said, let's follow this and see if there's any validity to this baloney that I've been feeding you along with the tapioca and all the stuff over these years of the 3A2. And there's the short-term trades in the 3A2 in the Dow E-mini. My goodness, really a big surprise, right? Well, folks, you'll never guess what happened today. You'll never guess what happened today.  But here's what happened today. And yesterday was the same thing. I didn't save yesterday's, of course, because it was a little different day, still 3A2. Again, the saying there was a high at the opening range. There was a little rally that we had right here before we went down and completed the ABCD pattern down there at 29.5 and change. Okay, so those are just a few of them. Now, if you like 3A2 and we're going to go through a few of these because we're very, very important. If you remember, we were talking about our good friend, Mr. Natural Gas. I'm going to get to the most important one here and just to set, well, they're all important, but I want to show you that these do work. Okay, there was the natural gas looking for lower, lower prices with that 3A2 retracement. So if you were trading natural gas today, and some of us were, you'll go in and take a look at where we were today. I'm going to show you the first one and we'll get it up here one second. And here we go. By the way, I'm doing my very best to get one of our old guests back on the old tube here. So hopefully I'll be able to get him on pretty soon to talk to us about things. So that's the first natural gas one. And the second natural gas one was right here and we'll get it up. And you'll see that these things actually work, folks, you know. And there's the second one in the natural gas. Okay. Now that's the 3A2 patterns work the best in strong trending markets. Okay. Now let's pick a market today that is very strongly trending. Hmm. Where could that be? Someone that had a major funeral this past, oh, it was over in Great Britain. So let's look at Great Britain today, folks. Here is the British pound on a monthly basis. All right. We're just going to look at it on a monthly. And folks, we've been pushing us in the newspaper for a long time looking for 85 in the British pound. There was your first 3A2 retracement right up here. There's your second one. There's your 135 pattern. Do you see the symmetry that's there? Can't make it up. It's there. But today, could that have helped you at all if you didn't own anything at all about the one or the 3A2 pattern in the British pound? I don't know. Let's just take a quick look. Okay. And here it comes, folks. This is just a 15-minute chart over the last two days. That's not so hard to figure, is it? Get it up and take a look at it. Bada bing, bada boom. And there it is. And the reason why I bring this up, folks, we just had a 108 handle too in the British pound, folks. When I did the thing with Tom O'Brien, Tom O'Brien with Tom Hougard back on the 20, on the 1st of April, it was 125. And now it's at 108 and we are heading towards 105. Excuse me, 85 is what we're looking at here. I've got a whole bunch of other of these 3A2s that I want to share with you because I think they're very important. Last night, if you believe in 3A2 and you were trading the S&P, I don't know. You might want to take a look at what we look at when we're watching the little 3A2 because there's a little tiny four-minute chart. But you can see the first ABCD pattern right here at the 3A2. You can see the second 3A2 repattern right here. Here was the opening 3A2 right here. And then, of course, we've come down. Now, I've got to share with you, our guest next week is going to be a Shane Smollion on Monday. He shared with us something very important, folks. These are the, what do they call these darn things, fail-safe systems where they lock down trading, okay? That means you're looking at the, if the S&P hits these down 7% on a day or down 15%, trading will halt. So remember these. I'm going to be keeping these on on tact. Let us know where we stand because we're very, we're breaking down badly, folks. And we know that we want, we have gone through our first daily S&P trade daily thing, which was at $37.45. We went 50 handles below that already. Folks, the only thing below that is $31.75. Hello, operator. Come on. Look at the charts.   In a time of booming inflation, where your purchasing power is eroded, there's no better place to protect your harder and money than ain't gold. Vista Gold's flagship asset is the Monk Todd Gold Project in the Northern Territory of Australia. This is Australia's largest undeveloped gold project. We are talking a world-class gold project in a tier one mining district. This is a large-scale, low-cost project with significant existing infrastructure in a politically safe and friendly mining jurisdiction. Vista Gold just completed the Monk Todd Feasibility Study, which resulted in a 7 million-ounce gold reserve in a 16-year mine life. All of this combined with the approvals of all major operational, as well as environmental permits. This distinguishes Monk Todd as an attractive, diverse party, ready-development stage gold project. Vista Gold trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol VGZ. Steve Rhodes started his trading career as a student almost 20 years ago, and the student has now become the master. Steve won the prestigious Timer of the Year award in 2018 and barely missed that mark again in 2019, finishing at number two for the year, an amazing accomplishment. Steve Rhodes is committed to sharing his techniques and knowledge with anyone who wants to learn, and he shares his vast amount of trading knowledge every day in his Mastering Probability newsletter. Steve's award-winning newsletter, Mastering Probability, is delivered every trading day with updates throughout the afternoon. Sign up for Steve's Market Newsletter, Mastering Probability, and you'll receive access to seven of Steve's educational webinars absolutely free. At TFNN, all our newsletters come with a 30-day money-back guarantee, so you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Visit TFNN.com and try Mastering Probability 30 Days Risk-Free Today, TFNN Educating Investors. Are you looking for a way to consistently add winning trades to your portfolio? Tom O'Brien is here to help. Tom O'Brien has been successfully trading markets for over 30 years, a frequent contributor to TD Ameritrade Network and CNBC. Tom O'Brien founded TFNN over 20 years ago to help educate investors just like you. Tom's Daily Market Newsletter, Market Insights, is published every morning when a market's open to give you the competitive informational edge you need to succeed. These newsletters are packed full of Tom's advanced technical analysis and are geared to deliver comprehensive strategies for a successful portfolio. Get Tom O'Brien's newsletter, Market Insights, today and try all of our products and newsletters 30 days risk-free with our money-back guarantee at TFNN.com, TFNN Educating Investors. Okay, I've just been informed by TFNN that these charts are not coming through. I don't know why. If you'd like to have them, I'll make a file and you can send it to Larry at tradingtutor.com and I'll fire out the charts that I put on the show today. It's my fault because I don't understand the technical part of this, but that's neither here nor there. Okay, folks, we're at a different dance this time. We've been talking about this for quite a while. I posted the chart of the Russell. That's the only one I had done today. It shows we're at the second standard deviation. We're ready to break that. We've already saw what happened when we broke the first standard deviation. We're now getting ready to break the second one. If we close badly today, God help us that we might rally 300 or 400 points, then we're going to break the third one. And folks, that's when the option boys have trouble. In 1987 on Sunday, October the 16th, James Baker was in Japan and he came out of a meeting saying, regrettably, and when those words regrettably came out of his mouth, the whole world went down to the porcelain tube, as you well know. That was the words that triggered the whole thing. I mean, gold rallied $25, limit up, bonds collapsed, the stock markets all over the world collapsed, and we led to the crash, which was the greatest buying opportunity of the 1980s. On October 19th, the Dow was down 16%. On today's thing is $4,500, and we are in a situation right now that is many times worse than what Jim Baker did. The reason why is we have the 30-year bond, folks, is yielding 3.7%. And the two-year note is at 4.2. That has never happened in the history of the United States of America. This is telling us, no, sir, no, sir, we don't have an R working for us. We've got a D working for us. It's not the R word. You've got to worry about folks. It's the D word. Three years ago, there were 900,000 puts and calls buyers in the S&P 500 options. Okay? Now there are 2.4 million. Hello, operator. 900,000 to 2.4 million. This is what we call EXPSE, like D-I-V-O-R-S-E exposure. Folks, this is really bad. I don't want to scare the poopy out of you, but we've already warned you. But no matter what happens, it's going to come for the heck of a bottom, and we're going to be able to see it right now. I was just informed today that we were just seeing a 3.8.2 retracement in the S&P right now as this was happening. So I'm not watching, but that's a good thing. Let's hope that it works out and we close okay today. But the first price level is 3,170. That's what we're looking at. That's only, folks, stop and think just a few days ago. Just a few days ago, folks, we were at 42.80. We've dropped 600 handles in just a couple of days. This is not good. So remind ourselves that. The last time we had a break was 1,500 in the Dow Jones. We didn't bounce much. We couldn't even make a 3.8.2, but we did go down 1,500 points. We've valid 3 or 400 points. Okay? So you multiply 15 times 1.618, and that gets you 2,500. That's what I'm expecting the Dow to be down Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, around at least 2,500 points in one day. Whether that'll be the bottom or not, I'm not sure. All I know is this is a long-term bearish market. I've tried over the last months and weeks and years to talk to you about different things that work. Little A, B, C, D patterns, 3.8.2 patterns. They do work, but unfortunately, boys and girls, they don't work all the time. That's why you got to buy a ticket and you got to learn to do it yourself. But when you figure out the magic of probability that you don't know what's, need to know what's going to happen next in order to make money, you're going to be just fine. But you don't know what's going to happen next because nobody knows that. So even forget about thinking about doing it. All I'm doing with these patterns is giving you rough ideas of what we're looking at here. Now, anytime I don't think the Fed can do anything anymore because the cat's pretty much out of the bag there that they've lost all their tools or they're instigating this whole thing on the down move. And anything's possible, of course. I'm just a technician. I look at these things and I say, hmm, that's what it looks like it's going to happen. So we'll say, this week's newsletter. And believe me, folks, you want to, let's just talk about the newsletter for just a second here. This week's newsletter, this are the positions that we talked about for people that we've been talking about, what the trend has been for a very, very long time. I'm not going to post them all because, you know, you've seen them. There's what our profit objective is right down here. You can see here, this is at 31 and change, all right? We're down in here now, folks. You see how close that distance is right here? And look how fast we're coming down. I don't know if that's going to stop or not because we get below here, we're going to take this one out. And you think that's not possible? We're in a situation where it's certainly, look what's happening to foreign currency, folks. Look what's happening to interest rates. Something is not right. When banks are struggling to buy the treasury bills based on US dollars, okay, there's a problem. Look at the British pound had a 108 handle, okay? The Euro, we've been talking about that as being very bearish, heading down towards 95 or 96. Heck, we're not far from 95 right now. All of them, every single one. The British pound we talked about, the Canadian dollar, the Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, crude oil. We said crude oil was going to break. If we broke 8,100, we'd be heading to 73 and there's where we are. Gold. My goodness, we've been waiting on gold for such a long time to get down here and we're not there. We're not too far away now in the gold market. So, you know, this is really a heck of a deal. We broke 1660 today, folks. Last time I saw it was 1650 or something like that. That means the target on the gold now is 1540. Just a few days ago, we were at what, 1780 and before that 1860? That's $200 and we haven't really got much time in that. So, this is not a time to be faint of heart. So, I want to end the show showing you just a couple of other things about the old 382 pattern because this is where you play the dance, folks. Buy your lottery ticket, learn how to do this and you're going to be a happy camper. There's the Euro. 382, bada-bing, bada-boom. Look at that. $2,000. The risk was about 200 bucks. Okay, let's take a look at old Goldy today. Oh, Goldy. No action there, right? All right, let's take a look at Goldy from the low to the high. Anybody that want to guess what it is? Little Johnny in the back of the room is raising his hand. He says, oh my goodness, 382. Look at this. And what does it do? It drops $2,000. Well, $1,800. So, these are some of the ones. There's others in here. I saved them all and we'll see what's going to happen with them. I have already done the YM and I think I did them all. Yeah, I pretty much are the ones I was looking at. So, those are the things that I'm paying attention to today. We've got Norm Winsky coming up on Monday. I can't believe, I'm either going to have Tim Boss, Peter Lighty, Shane Smolian. We're also going to have Stan Harley next week and we've got to have Tim Boss back on also. But our guest today is none other than the wizard from Naples, Florida, Astro Trans. Mr. Norm Winsky will be with us when the break comes up and we are going to hear the sound of one-hand clapping, folks, because Norm has been spot on as far as telling us where these markets he thought they were going to go. But now we have to put his pedal to the metal and make him tell us what happens next. We'll be right back with Mr. Norm Winsky from Naples, Florida. If you want to take advantage of this sector now is the time to subscribe to my Gold Report. The Gold Report is a comprehensive look at the metal sector as well as the markets that move gold, which is the currency and bond markets. New subscribers get a 30-day money-back guarantee so you have nothing to lose. Every Monday morning, I publish the Gold Report with coverage of gold, silver, bonds, DXAU, HUI, GDX, as well as more than 30 different mining equities. To see for yourself the types of profitable trades that are recommended within the Gold Report, sign up now by visiting tfnn.com. Don't miss out on the next great gold trade. Sign up today. TFNN is excited about our new software charting program, the Art of Timing the Trade Charts. In collaboration with Tom O'Brien and using his best-selling book, The Art of Timing the Trade, your ultimate trading mastery system, David White has programmed an outstanding piece of software that will complement any trader's methodology. Using this first-of-its-kind program, the Art of Timing the Trade Charts allows you to scan thousands of stocks for Fibonacci formation setups, including Gartly's, ABC's, Butterflies, and much more. The Art of Timing the Trade Charts is designed to help you when scouring the markets for stocks just beginning to form the trading patterns that many investors spend days, weeks, or even months searching to find. And right now, we're offering licenses available at only $79 a month. We are so confident that you're going to love this new charting software that will even give you a 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee. Don't miss out on this incredible new piece of software. Get your copy of the Art of Timing the Trade Charts today by visiting TFNN.com. Sharpening your skills as an investor is like getting better at playing a musical instrument. You have to practice, sure, but you also need excellent instruction from experts. At TFNN, you'll get advice and guidance from the authority and technical market analysis. And it's not just dry, tedious text, either. TFNN airs live, financial content streamed live on TFNN.com and TFNN's YouTube channel with Tiger TV, live every market day from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Eastern. For free, each host is an experienced trader and gives their take on the market while taking calls and questions live from around the world. From the moment the market opens until the closing bell sounds, Tiger TV has eight different shows with expert hosts to help you make the right moves with your money. Watch online at TFNN.com or on TFNN's YouTube channel and become the investor you were born to be, TFNN, educating investors. This segment is brought to you by Think or Swim. For more information, just click the Think or Swim banner on the front page of TFNN.com. Okay, we're back, folks, and I believe we have Norm Winsky from Astro Trends on the line now. Norman, how are you? Thanks for having me on your show. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you okay. I think it was only fair that we have you on the show because on September the 12th, you said the market should start down, and since there was a second great call you had since the one in May of 2015, which was the top of the year, you've had two winning trades in the last, what, nine years, so I think you're doing a good job. So keep up the good work. Norman, I'm pulling your leg just a little bit, so don't panic. You did a fabulous job. Everybody here at TFNN appreciates you, Norm. So why don't you tell us what we're looking at now. Okay, buddy? All right. Well, I was last on your show on Tuesday, September 6th. That was the day immediately following the three-day Labor Day weekend. Monday was holiday, and so I came on and forecasted what was what had just happened over the Labor Day weekend and what was coming up.  All these points apply to the stock market. The stock market is the big basket of everything, so I don't always say stocks when I indicate a market. I just assume the stocks are there, but the commodities, other markets, are narrow filters, so they only respond to certain planets and certain sites. Okay, so then I spell those out. Also, what we're looking for in a setup is we want to see a market that's at some kind of extreme is the ideal, the bigger the extreme, the better, but we want the market to go up or go down into our magic time window, and if it goes sideways, we don't do anything. We're looking for reversals. These things tend to reverse at these astrological points to about 70, 75% of the time. That's pretty good. All right.  Oh, by the way, one more thing. Once you learn this terminology, I'll be happy to help you with that. You want to give me a call, give you a free class, and once you learn this, there's nothing that I'm doing here that's over a fifth grade level. So if you made it through grade school, you're good to go with me. Okay, so here we go. Venus, perihelion, that's a word from the Greek. Para means close healing is the sun. Venus in its 225 days cycle was at its closest point to the sun over the Labor Day weekend, and I was forecasting over the Labor Day, which usually, when we have a change of trend like that overnight or over a weekend, it usually spills over into the first next trading day morning is the ideal window is the sort of statistical historical pattern doesn't always confirm that there's no always in the stock market, as you know, Larry, but that's the typical pattern. And so we'd be looking for that would spill over into Tuesday into the sixth. And so there we go. So if Venus was indicating, remember, it's always stocks, cattle, copper, corn, cotton, gold, sugar, wheat. So we have those markets indicated for that. And then the next big thing we had a big cluster over the ninth weekend, and that indicated we'd be looking for something Monday to 12 for a big change in trend for the following markets. We had mercury turning retrograde in the sign of Libra, and that was for mercury grains, corn, soybeans, wheat, and because it's a Libra, also sugar, and then a full moon in Pisces. So we'll be looking at the time I have a full moon, new moon, we round up the usual suspects, which are financial grains, precious metals. And because it was in Pisces, we'll be looking at oil too. And then we had Jupiter to the US natal chart. Natal chart is a snapshot where the planets were when something began. And in this case, since it's a good old USA, that would be where the planets were on the fourth of July in 1776. So now let's look at the charts here and see how it all happened. So the corn was kind of going sideways for our first point there. So we did nothing. Then it dipped and then I had a big rally into the 12th, into the weekend of the ninth, into the 12th. But if you sold on the opening there, that was too much risk. That was too much rally there. We actually had the high day, that was kind of a heartbreaker. You could sold there. I had to mark that as a miss, because look how much it rallied before you actually topped out. So, you know, you're willing to take the heat, then it's a winner. But I like to be kind of hard on myself and assume the worst case. Beans did the same thing. So we had those two points for that. And so we're off to a bad start here with four misses. And we got the wheat though. The wheat had a miss over here in the beginning. But then we had three points for wheat for that ninth weekend for the morning of the 12th. So you have a small winner there for the wheat. And now we're getting a little better with Venus perihealing. Venus is cattle, and that's a nice trade there with a top on the cattle. And same deal on the cotton there. And notice how after that the cotton went down, down, down. And then here's your sugar. Just missed that low there. You're buying near the low there and it popped up for a couple days for a winner. And then over here, if you sold there, you had a chance to make some money a couple of days later. And then copper, that was the low of the month. That was Venus perihealing, gave you the low of the month for the copper. And you know, that's a big ticket item, Larry. So I don't even know how much money. That's probably a lot of money. There are probably thousands of dollars there. And here's the silver. That was kind of like the grains there. And you were selling at the bottom of the day. And then you never had really a chance to recover for four or five days. So that was a miss. Gold paid much better. You had a short-term top there. You had a chance to make some money. Here we had a chance to make some big money there with the gold and so forth. The oil just kept going. So that's a miss. Here's the S&P was maybe one of my best markets the last couple of weeks. We had the low. I remember being on your show on the, right around this time on the sixth and saying that we were looking for a low there. And we made that low. And then we had the big rally into the ninth weekend and into the 12th.  So we had those four winners there based on those four points. And then bonds were going sideways. So we do nothing. The yellow is sideways. Nothing. Then the dollar currencies danced to the moon, Larry. So the dollar was down, down, down into them, into the moon. And then it bottomed on the, within a day. And then up, up, up. And this is important to keep in mind because we're coming up to over this weekend, we have a new moon. So you might want to pay attention to that. Here's your Aussie dollar did the same. They went, rallied up into the moon and then reverse the date, the next day. And here's the British pound. They all did pretty much the same thing. There's the Canadian dollar. It actually was a little better timing wise than a top on the 12th. And here's the euro topping on the 12th. And here's the end made a little top there the next day. And there you go. Here's the Swiss strength topping the next day. And so forth. So if you add up the greens in their heads, you got 22 winners, six minutes out of 28 for 78.57%. Notice how simple this is. No moving averages, no oscillators, no nothing. You can apply your Fibonacci 382, 618 if you want. But the time is more important the price. That's what Mr. Ganz said. So you have to have the right time and then you can define tune it with Fibonacci to get the exact right price. Here's something I sell them to show when I do these, because this goes out to the subscribers of my letter. I do a Bradley style, not Bradley. I totally revamp Bradley. But I do a Bradley style forecast before I send out my letter every month. And I drew this blue line back in, was that late, I guess late August. And here we go. And then our overlay every night, overlay the black bars in an email update on top to see how we're doing. And here's what the forecast was. And it sounds like we got a commercial. We had to be a few bills. We got two questions when we come back. Okay, Norm. Okay. Yes, sir. Norm Winsky, folks, Astro trends will be right back. You might think that if you want to be successful at trading in a stock market, you're going to need a crystal ball. After all, it's impossible to predict the future, right? Like any endeavor in life, before you decide it's impossible, get some advice from the experts. You might find that it's not so impossible. After all, for daily market overviews that give you direction on the key indices, selective stocks and commodities, subscribe to the opening call newsletter at tfnn.com. The opening call newsletter is written by Basil Chapman, creator of the trading methodology known as the Chapman wave. The Chapman wave up down sequence gives you an edge in identifying price turns, finding the peaks and valleys in stock prices.  First time subscribers also get a 30 day money back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up tfnn.com. Educating investors. The technology around us is changing every day. With so much happening, it can seem impossible to keep up with all the information. David White's investment newsletter, the technology insider, is designed to give you all the information you need to understand the technology that shapes today's markets and tomorrow's future. David White has made his living staying on the cutting edge of technology. His weekly newsletter will give you specific recommendations for value tech stocks as well as entry prices, target prices and stops to set for each trade. Dave delivers his weekly newsletters every Friday with updates throughout the week. You can get the technology insider at tfnn.com for only $37.50. Sign up for Dave's newsletter, the technology insider and get an inside look at everything the technology sector has to offer. Try it risk-free today with our 30 day money back guarantee. tfnn. Educating investors. Biotech is booming, but for how long? Whether you think the biotech bull has room to run or has run its course, trade LABU or LABD. Directions daily S&P biotech three times bull and bear ETFs. Visit directioninvestments.com slash biotech today. An investor should consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the direction shares carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain this and other information about direction shares. To obtain a prospectus or summary prospectus, please contact direction shares at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The prospectus or summary prospectus should be read carefully before investing. An investment in the funds is subject to risk including the possible loss of principal. The funds are designed to be utilized only by sophisticated investors such as traders and active investors. Distributor, foresight fund services, LLC. This program is brought to you by Vista Gold, traded on the NYSE American and TSX under the symbol VGZ. Okay folks, we're speaking with Norm Winsky of Astro Transnorm. We have a question about the Bradley model and what is the next Bradley date that you're really interested in? It's not really a Bradley date because I loved his concept but I thought he was crazy the way he, his components and the way he was very inconsistent so I don't want to call it a Bradley date. I call it a planter. It's called a Winsky date. Whatever you want to call it, we got the next point. Notice, okay, I was going to talk about this. You see these red arrows down here? They indicate the most significant points. Look at that back here. We had a new moon with a mercury point and we had a top there. Here we go. This is the point I talked about last on your last show where that we're going to have a full moon and mercury turning retrograde with your red arrow there. Look what happened. See that was the last big top and we've been melding down pretty much ever since. And guess what? The next red arrow is when? See the date? This weekend. Rosh Hashanah. That's why I asked to come on your show now, Larry. It's not Rosh Hashanah. So you want to have to wait? Start of the High Holy Days. Yes. What's that? Start of the High Holy Days, Rosh Hashanah. There you go. Exactly. Shodah tovah, you know. That's January 1st. No, not in the Hebrew. It's not January 1st. That means Happy New Year, folks. Yeah, exactly. Okay, go ahead, Norm. Even me from Little Frankfurt, Indiana knows that. You got it, brother. All right. There we go. And then they got another red arrow here at the end of the month with mercury direct. Oh, well, I'll be getting to that and I don't get ahead of myself here. All right. Well, anyway, there you go. You can see this is working pretty well. I don't know what you think, Larry, but I think it's pretty good correlation there, right? So I did this chart, you know, before I sent out the September letter that went out on, I think, Sunday, August the 28th, on the 9th to the 28th. So this is all done in advance. So if you folks are interested in knowing what, giving it, getting a clue what the market may be doing in advance, give me a call, right? So here's what's coming up now this weekend. As we just said, AC is after the close. So that's the 23rd. That's the day after close over the weekend. We're going to have a new moon that'll be on Sunday. As Larry indicated, that coincides, you know, the Hebrew calendar is on a lunar calendar. So then all the holidays, Jewish holidays coincide to new moons, full moons, that kind of thing. And so we have the new moon there in the sign of Libra this weekend. And anytime we have a new moon, full moon, we end up the usual suspects, which are financials, grains, precious metals. And because it's a Libra sugar and wheat, well, we would follow, it gets a double hit here because of the moon and Libra. Then we have moon to the U.S. So that's a U.S. thing. So U.S. stocks, T bonds, U.S. dollar, same thing here again. Coming up on the night of the 20th, that was the time of the 26th, 9 of the 29th, all these things will spill over into the next morning. But we have to wait till we get there to decide whether it's going to be a higher low. We don't try to predict the direction of way in advance. That just will get you painted into a corner, nailed down to a scenario, which will probably lose your money. You know, so the human brain, I believe, is wired to lose money. So you don't want to be thinking, as you and I have often laughed about, Larry, and it's true, the less you think, the better you do, right, Larry? It's what you see, not what you think. Yep, so there we go. So here, again, you got the 9 of the 28th U.S. chart, U.S. stocks, T bonds, U.S. dollar, then that's the end of the month. In the month we have Mercury and Virgo, Mercury retrograded back into Virgo. That's going to turn direct, go forward, and that's your grains. And then here, this is a double whammy, Larry. I know you like the grains. This is a double whammy here for the grains. You got Mercury turning retrograde and Mercury at zero north latitude. That's very rare for those two things to coincide like that. And you know what happens when I say that's a rare event, Larry? Usually something big happens, right? You've been pretty good so far, my friend. Pretty good so far. Just like the restaurant business, you're as good as your last meal. There you go. So corn, soybeans, wheat, and then I even give you a sneak peek in October there. I think that's Monday night the third Saturn to the U.S. chart. So for those who haven't seen me before, I've been doing this a long time, not as long as Larry, but somewhere in the ballpark there. And I started right out of college in 1975. I was actually investing while I was in college in the early 70s. Made enough money to buy a membership on this. Then fledgling Chicago Board Options Exchange at age 24. I landed there after I finished school in May of 75 at age 24. I was a member market maker with a trade on the floor. And I also traded a little bit later on the board of trade. And I did all that for over a 12-year period. And then when we got to 87, we had the big harmonic convergence. My harmonic convergence, the planets lined up and the stock market went bubbly to me. And I decided I had accumulated three memberships by then. And I decided to sell them all. And I was getting to be an old man there in my 30s. I decided it was time to go. And so I avoided the crash of 87. I traded that from upstairs in an office. I was no longer a member. I just sold less of my memberships, I think October 1 of 87. Okay, so here's how you get a hold of me. I can help you out, give you a free class. Get you advanced trading analysis with all kinds of things I've studied. You know, advanced Fibonacci, astrology, GAN, fractals, whatever you probably, whatever you can name, I probably looked at it. So here's how to get a hold of me. I'm here in beautiful Naples, Florida, 2-3-9, 5-9, 4-3-9, 3-9, and Winske. That's N-W-I-N-S-K-I at E-M-B-A-R-Q-M-A-I-L.com. Or you can call me on Skype for free at N-Winske, N-W-I-N-S-K-I-N. I'll just go digit one. Are there any questions from the Dan there, Larry? I think we're okay. You did a great job so far. So hopefully what you're looking at was, you know, might work again, but you were pretty good the last time. So just keep up the good work and stay on the green side of the grass. Yes, sir, Larry. The way this works is with the new moon over the weekend, the ideal is if the stock market, for example, is what we're probably most people looking at today. With the big down, ideally, since it's down a lot, we'd like to see it close, on or near the lows, and then have some spillover in the Monday morning. And you'll probably make it, not a forecast, it's the ideal model. And then maybe go down for the first half hour to hour. And that's where the ideal time would be for the market to reverse following a new moon. Okay? So that's the kind of thing we would be looking for. It doesn't always follow that, and that's sort of the ideal model. You mean it doesn't work all the time? No, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Yeah, that's what makes it work, is because it doesn't work all the time. Yes, sir. Hey, listen, Norm, happy holidays to you, my friend, and we will have you on again soon. Let us know when you'd like to come on, and we'll have you on as a guest again. You did a great job. All right, probably before the next full moon. All right. That sounds good. Do you hear that noise out there, Norm? That's everybody clapping? Sound of one hand clapping, brother, just like they do for me. I love you, pal. Take it easy, stay on the green side of the grass, okay? Okay, thanks a lot. Everybody have a great weekend. Okay, thank you, Norm. Appreciate it very much, folks. Looking forward to helping some of your folks. Okay, Norm Winsky, folks, Astro Trends out of Naples, Florida, from Indiana, Frankfurt, Indiana, to be exact. I'm going to give you a little... We're going to buy a lottery ticket here, boys and girls. Let's just take a little lottery ticket. I know the chances of it is going to happen is very slim, but we're going to be right back. Vista Gold owns and operates the largest undeveloped gold project in Australia, the Mount Todd Gold Project. Vista Gold just completed their feasibility study, resulting in a 7 million-ounce gold reserve. Vista Gold has all major permits approved and has retained CIBC Capital Market Assistance in evaluating alternatives and in completing an accreted transaction. Vista Gold trades on the NYSE American and TSX under the ticker symbol VGZ. Vista Gold executing a strategy to create shareholder value. You might think that if you want to be successful at trading in the stock market, you're going to need a crystal ball. After all, it's impossible to predict the future, right? Like any endeavor in life, before you decide it's impossible, get some advice from the experts. You might find that it's not so impossible after all. For daily market overviews that give you direction on the key indices, selective stocks and commodities, subscribe to the Opening Call Newsletter at tfnn.com. The Opening Call Newsletter is written by Basil Chapman, creator of the trading methodology known as the Chapman Wave. The Chapman Wave up-down sequence gives you an edge in identifying price turns, finding the peaks and valleys in stock prices. Get the Opening Call Newsletter by Basil Chapman in your inbox every day. First-time subscribers also get a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. tfnn.com Educating investors. Everything in the universe is governed by the Fibonacci sequence. This mathematical principle is responsible for everything from the most aesthetically pleasing artwork to patterns in the stock market. To stay on top of stock patterns you can take advantage of, sign up for the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter at tfnn.com. When you subscribe, you'll get a weekly report from Veteran Day Trader Larry Pesavento on stocks you need to pay attention to, and you can trust Larry's analysis. After all, he's got 45 years' experience as a day trader. Larry will also provide daily charts, videos, and data on the key markets that he's tracking. Expect notifications from Larry on market movement you need to act on at any time. First-time subscribers also get a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. Subscribe to the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter today. tfnn.com Educating investors. tfnn has launched The Tiger's Den. Hosted at Discord, tfnn has been educating traders for more than 20 years with live programming hosted by a variety of professional traders during market hours. The Tiger's Den, available to all Tigers and Tigresses for just $1 for the year. There's no catch or added costs when you join our community of traders. Sign up today and become a part of this educational community of traders. Just visit the front page of tfnn.com. Don't forget, you can listen to tfnn live on your mobile device 24 hours per day. Go to tfnn.com, then hit Watch Tiger TV. That's tfnn.com, then hit Watch Tiger TV. Okay, folks, we're backing. We're going to buy a lottery ticket. I posted the chart of the 15-minute Dow Jones. Here's where we had the Federal Reserve in here. We had that big 1200-point swing. We had to move down. You see the first little ABCD, 3-8-2, 3-8-2, 3-8-2, 3-8-2. We had four of them. So the lottery ticket is this, folks. There's the 3-8-2 off of the high of the market that we made back here on Fed Day. I don't care if it happens today or maybe even Sunday night, early Monday morning. If we get that, that's your lottery ticket. You're going to have to pay $500 for that lottery ticket, risking 100 points. But if it's right, you're looking at an ABCD that is going to be well over 2,000 points. So you're willing to risk $500 to make $10 large. This is a pretty good bet, folks. That's like secretariat running against maiden claimers, because this thing has got a chance, if it works, it's going to make a lot of money. Anyway, that's what I'd be looking at. The chances of it working are about like a lottery ticket, one in a million. But if it does, and if it does, that would be very good. And not only that would be the first 3-8-2 retracement we had, because this one here wasn't even close to a 3-8-2 retracement. So that's what we're watching here. So, okay, folks, I've given you a few things that you could probably think about over the weekend and stuff like that. So I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Try to do something nice for your neighbors and stuff, because a lot of these folks are having a heck of a time out there. And it's really tough for some people, and we've got to remember that that's the way that's going. So do what you can for your fellow man, and you'll be much better off for it. It's not what you think. It's not what you trade. It's not what you think. It's not what you see. Whoa. It's not what you see. It's what you think. It's what you see. I have been up too many nights in a row, boys and girls, so it's not what you see. It's not what you think. It's what you see. I surrender. I love you all. We'll see you Monday. God willing. Amen.


Hello, I'm J.J. Joachim and welcome to Philosophy and What Matters, where we discuss things that matter from a philosophical point of view. Our topic for today is truth and paradox. For some philosophers, truth is a substantial property. When I say that it is true that Paris is in France, it is true part add something to the sentence Paris is in France. Now this added feature might be the sentence corresponding to facts, or cohering to other beliefs, or being empirically or formally provable, or even being a useful belief to have. Now other philosophers deny this. For this latter group of philosophers, truth is transparent and does not add anything to the sentence. They argue that in non-abate context, there's nothing substantially different in uttering the sentence, it is true that Paris is in France, from simply stating that Paris is in France. So who is right here? What is the nature of truth? Now whatever the right theory may turn out to be, however, it would have to come to terms with a liar paradox. The problem of ascertaining the truth of the sentence, this very sentence I'm uttering now, is false. Now to guide us through the philosophical spandrels of truth and why it matters, we have J.C. Dio, a new family professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. So hello J.C., welcome to philosophy and what matters. Thank you, it's good to be here. Okay, so let's start with the question, what do philosophers mean by saying truth is a substantial property? And what is it a property of in the first place? So let me take this one at a time. The last question, what are the truth bearers? What are the things that truth is a property of? This is debated widely. They can be propositions, they can be mental states, beliefs, thoughts. I myself think that no matter what the truth of the bearer question may be, many of the important issues still exist. So I myself have never gotten too worked up about that debate. Not to say there aren't hard and important questions there, but I tend to take the view that we use declarative sentences to say something, to declare something about the world. We try to describe the world using declarative sentences. We assert declarative sentences. And I tend to leave the bearer question right there. So truth is a property of declarative sentences. The philosophical debate over truth bearers is really the question of whether declarative sentences are the primary truth bearers or whether there's something language independent that's the bearer. And I myself am going to just sort of let others figure that out because I think many of the issues about truth still apply no matter how that debate goes. So I've gestured at your, your second question about the truth bearers. Let me now answer the first question you had, which was what philosophers mean when they say that truth is a substantial property. Of course, as with many things, different philosophers can mean different things. But I think that the most useful answer to this question, at least in the context of this discussion, and in many philosophical contexts, but the most useful answer points to the idea of an explanatory property. So when people say that truth is a substantial property, I take them to be saying that truth itself is doing a lot of explanatory work in our theories of reality. So the property of truth is comparable to other important explanatory properties.  These things, forget about whether these can be reduced to more fundamental properties. But in general, these things do explanatory work, right? They really characterize parts of the world in a way that explains the difference between this object and that object. And why this object, say, the object that bears the property of being human puts one of these objects that bears the property of being a peanut in its mouth or something. You know, you have all these, you have all these sort of explanatory properties, and then as theorists, we might say, yeah, but is being human. Is that really the fundamental question and then you can have debates about whether that should be reduced to more fundamentally explanatory properties and so on. Okay. So I didn't define what it is to be an explanatory property, but I hope I've gestured at what I'm talking about. Now, when philosophers say that truth is a substantial property, I take them just to be saying that truth is also explanatory. There's something out there in the world, or if we were to fully describe the world, we would have to describe this property truth. We would have to, our explanation would be lacking somewhere if we didn't have this property truth involved in a critical way. Yeah. And as you said in your intro, some people who think the truth is explanatory, they think the explanatory work it does is, it's the relation between a true sentence in the world. It's correspondence between this sentence and the way the world is. So they think in order to characterize that part of reality, the sentence world part, you have to talk about this important property of truth. Or others, as you said, coherence or a sort of pragmatic view where most useful, I mean, all these things you can imagine truth playing an important explanatory role, it's answering an important theoretical question. Okay. That's what it is to say the truth is a substantial property, at least on clear accounts of what it is for truth to be a substantial property. It's basically, it's doing important explanatory work. So that's the answer I would give. Thanks very much. So the idea is that truth as a concept might be an explanatory in the sense that it gives you a correspondence relation or a coherence relation or a pragmatic relation or even a probability relation if you're an anti-realist. But truth relates to other concepts as well, like beliefs, facts and logical consequence. So could you picture how the concept of truth relates to these other concepts? Well, of course it depends a little bit on your view of what truth is. But in general, people think that beliefs can be true. And that beliefs, some people say things like one difference between beliefs and desires is that beliefs can be true. So, and that in some sense, other things being equal, they sort of aim at truth. Whereas desires, they don't aim at truth. So notice here, something like that is trying to invoke truth as an important explanatory difference between these mental states. Concepts, let me set that aside a little bit. I mean, people can say, I mean, concepts I think actually is related to truth indirectly through a different sort of notion, which is true of. So, a concept may be true of something, but concepts themselves aren't true or false. They're not, let me say propositional or sentential or something. And logical consequence, that's an interesting one. Many philosophers have said that logical consequence is necessarily truth preserving. And, you know, a key to logical consequences is that it preserves truth. If all of these premises are true, then so too is any logical consequence of them. So, and this is supposed to be a necessary preservation of truth relation. So, you know, you can, you can see how truth is related to consequence. It turns out that there are some sort of complications with that, with that tie in between truth and logical consequence. But, but maybe it's best not to get into those. I mean, but that's the general sort of way in which truth is related to consequence is the way that I said, even though, in fact, I think there are problems with saying that but that's that it's more technical and probably we can talk about that another time. Okay, so yeah, so I'm trying to understand the issue here. So when philosophers think about truth, they're thinking about it in terms of whether it's a substantial property or not. It's substantial in your sense, if it gives or provides an explanation, it has explanatory power and it relates to beliefs because beliefs are true as opposed to desires which are not. Concepts will be something like you can satisfy a concept.  And the logical consequence relation will be kind of truth preservation according to some theory. However, here's the thing. In a field paper survey, majority of professional philosophers, more than 50% as you can see here, accept or lean toward a substantial view of truth, something like a correspondence view and only 24% are going for the negative view. This is known as the deflationary theory. You're part of the minority by reading your work. So you think the truth is not really a substantial property, that it is something transparent. So what does it mean for this view? What does transparent to mean here? And how is it motivated? Right. Well, let me just say that I, on the side, I've never understood just how much weight and what information we're getting from the survey. Partly because, you know, people who have thought hard about truth, they've, you know, done a lot of work on it and all that, know that there are a lot of distinctions. So when people talk about deflationary truth, right, I mean that can mean a lot of different things. When they talk about correspondence, that can mean a lot of different things. So for sort of no doubt, very good philosophers who know of these debates, but they just sort of say, well, I sit with the correspondence. It's not clear to me whether that means what it indicates exactly. But having said that, I am convinced from years ago, years giving, you know, talks and engaging with students and colleagues all over that you're right about one thing that I and other so-called deflationists really are in the minority. Yeah. But I think that the explanation for that is that when people say, I'm definitely not a deflationist, they're rejecting something that probably is not really part of the view or something. And again, just to be clear, deflationism is not actually a view. It's sort of a family of views that are united on one point. Namely, that truth is not a substantial property in the way that we were talking. So the property of truth does not answer any explanatory questions. So deflationists are so-called because they're united around that commitment. Now, a transparent truth theorist such as myself or Hartree Field is another person who's done a lot of work in the area. This is the idea that not only is truth not explanatory, but it really is sort of completely see-through. So an inscription of transparent truth to a sentence is equivalent, absolutely equivalent in its consequences to the original sentence. So sometimes this is put as to say a sentence P is true for transparent truth. That truth description to P is intersubstitutable with P itself. Everywhere except of course in so-called intentional context like inside quotation marks and all that stuff. So transparent truth is really that there is a property of truth, but it's completely see-through. So I put this in some of my work in the past. I've put it this way that God could completely describe the world entirely, lead nothing out without ever mentioning truth or without ever using the truth predicate. So it's not adding anything. Now, of course, you might ask, well, why do we have it in the language then? I have my own answer, but I'll gesture an answer that's common among deflationists as I defined it. I defined it negatively. We have it in the language because it allows us to make certain claims that we couldn't otherwise make. I think the philosopher made the clearest was Stephen Leeds, and then Klein said something similar, but the point is right. So you ask, well, why would we have a predicate that doesn't add any consequences to what we say? It sort of adds sort of bells and whistles like you just saying true, but you could have had all the consequences without that. Well, the reason is that there not being God, not having all the infinite capabilities being stuck in our finite situation, there are many things that we cannot express without this device. So let me give you a common example. Suppose that let me let me do it in two steps. That one, right? Let's say that your favorite, your favorite set of numbers. No, no, sorry. Sorry, let me not do it that way. Let me do it this way. Your favorite set of claims or assertions are the following three. Okay, so your favorite ones are exhausted by the following three. The number one comes before the number two, the number two comes before the number three, and the number three comes after the number two. Those are three claims, and that set of claims, that's what you believe, and those are your favorite true beliefs. Now, if I were to say, well, JJ's favorite theory is, and then I point to this set of three sentences, I can say, his favorite theory is this set, he thinks all of these are true. Well, I could have more informatively said JJ thinks that the statement one comes before two is true, he thinks two comes before three is true, and he thinks that three comes after two is true. But notice, I don't even have to say true there. I can just say, here's what JJ believes. He believes one comes before two, two comes before three, and three comes after two. And that's all he believes. Or at least those are his favorite beliefs, and he believes them. That's what he believes. So I don't need to use truth at all in that position. But now, suppose that what you really believe is sort of the generalization all the way up through, you know, infinity, for all the natural numbers, right? JJ believes one comes before two, and two comes before three, and I'm going to now change what I said before just to make the example. Three comes before four, four comes before five, and so on. Notice that I can never communicate what you believe in a finite amount of time. Right. Unless I have some device that allows me to say exactly what we want to say, but do it without needing to find an infinite amount of time. Here's how I just say, take the set of all claims of the form n comes before n plus one. JJ believes that all of those are true. That claim that JJ believes all of them are true is absolutely equivalent to saying JJ believes one comes before two, two comes before three, three comes before four. So that's why I say God, of course, could just zip through all your infinitely many beliefs. Never needs to say true or anything like that. JJ believes this, believes that, and so on. We can't do that. So we have this device in the language that allows us to technically, it's called quantifying into the subject position there where you have sentences. And we say, you know, for any X of X is in that set, then JJ believes X is true. Okay. So for those who have never heard that before that might be a little complicated, but remember the question that that's supposed to answer is, if, if ascribing truth to a sentence adds no new consequences to the to what the sentence would have had. Why on earth do we have it? Well, the reason we have it is just for practical reasons. It allows us to say true things in our finite situation. So it's like truth is, it's like a shortcut here because you have a generalization. Yeah, so you use the two concept as a shortcut for that. That's exactly right. It's a shortcut, but that's exactly why I say God could describe all of reality without ever using the truth predicate. And he'd leave nothing out. He'd describe all of reality and leave nothing out without ever using the truth predicate. We have to use it because we're, you know, we have no other option. We can't go through the claims and so on. Yeah, so I like that motivation. So because we are finite teachers and we're talking about some something infinite, we need some kind of shortcut, perhaps a heuristic device for this one. Now, in your work, you use the metaphor of spandrels to describe transparent truth. So, by the way, JC's work is this book, Spandrels of Truth. So what do you mean by this spandles of truth idea? Well, the evolutionary biologists, Gould and Lou Wanton, they took an architectural term, spandrels, which applied to certain inevitable features of an architectural structure. And that's what it was, an architecture. And they applied it more generally to evolution. And they said, for example, okay, they didn't say this, but here's a way of seeing the idea. Somebody might say, you know, why did Mother Nature select the trait of having fingers on human hands, right? And the answer, of course, as well, that made humans better able to survive and thrive because you can grip things and so on. Okay, fine. Now, why did Mother Nature select to have a V shape between the fingers? And so you can imagine one way of doing biology is to think, yeah, there must be, there must be an answer, there must be an answer. And trying to figure out, well, why pick that shape, you know. And the other way is to treat it as a spandrel of the selection of fingers. So if you select having four fingers just so, you inevitably have a V shape between them. So it's an inevitable, often unintended side effect of selecting this feature, okay? So you bring these things into an environment just so you cannot but bring these shapes into the environment. So those are spandrels. And in the end, you don't need to ask, why did Mother Nature select those? That's the wrong question. Those are just spandrels of Mother Nature selecting having four fingers just so. Okay. So I took that idea and thought, well, that's very much like truth, transparent truth. So we spoke a language where, as I said, there's no property of truth in the world where we need a predicate to name it. Like there are trees, so we need is a tree. There's this, there's that. But we don't need, there's no property of truth in the world that we need to bring in a predicate and name the thing. But for reasons we went through, and I wasn't very clear in my account of it, but for reasons we went through, remember trying to describe the infinite theory that JJ endorses ones below two and so on and so on and so on. We needed a device that allows us to make those claims. So we brought the truth predicate into the language that we have, and in that linguistic environment, and bringing that in is going to have inevitable and often unintended side effects. And one of the side effects is that you have sentences, new sentences of the language that you would never have had before bringing that thing in. And these are, so when you bring in a transparent truth predicate or a transparent falsity predicate, you're going to have new sentences that in absolutely no way would exist until you brought that those predicates into the language. So, and these of course are the famous paradoxes. Okay, so let's get into that. So one of the biggest problem about the notion of truth is the liar paradox. So this is one of the unintended consequences. So putting in that predicate, right. So any theory of truth should come to terms with it. So can you tell us something about this problem. Yeah. So the So as I said before, let's let's say that we've for the generalizing purposes at hand remember God didn't need to use a truth predicate or a falsity predicate God can describe everything without using we bring them in for our own practical purposes. If I want to say everything in JJ's theory is false. Just using, you know, the generalizing falsity predicate. I'm not pointing to some important property in the world falsity or anything like that. I'm just saying that it's transparently false. Not in the nebistemic way, but in this transparent truth. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, so we bring in the predicate false for these practical purposes only. But once we do the grammar of the language into which we introduce these things automatically generates sentences that you didn't have before, such as you know, as a sentence like this. I don't know if you can see it. Is that Yes, it's a red sentence. The red sentence is false. Yeah. Yeah. So there's no way you'd ever be able to formulate that it would never count as a sentence in the language until you introduce this this falsity predicate. But not only do you have these weird sentences coming about. But they're actually they're called paradoxes because they they challenge a number of the challenge our theories in a number of different ways. So if you take the sentence I gave you the red sentence is false. Is that showing up I can't really see. Yeah, I could read it the red sentence is false and it's in color red. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if you look at if you take that sentence right. The standard argument or the standard account of logic tells us that every sentence is true or false. So that sentence has to be true or false. If it's true, then of course, well what it says is correct. So the red sentence is false. So if it's true, then it's false. But of course, so you might say well that's not right. So now go to the other side. If it's false, well then of course what it's saying is true. It's saying it itself is false and it's truly describing that. So on the standard account of logic this thing this new sentence has to be either true or false. And but in either case, given the rules of truth and falsity that the rules that are definitive of this device. If it's either true or false, it's going to be both true and false as we saw. If it is true, then it has to be false. So it's true and false. If it's false, it has to be true. So again, it's false and true. Okay, so I'm trying to make sense of the liar paradox is one of the oldest paradoxes we have in philosophy. So we start with a sentence something like this one, the statement is false or the red sentence is false. Okay, and so on. So you have those sentences. It's generated because you have the truth and falsity predicate in your language. So you could use those things to talk about well sentences themselves. But there's another feature that you're talking about the principle that a sentence at least common sense would tell us is either true or false. So I think this is known as the law of excluded middle. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, yeah, when I said the standard account of logic tells us it gives us, as you say, the so-called law of excluded middle, which says every sentence is true or it's false. I mean, that can be represented sort of as a form, either a or not a for all sentences a. But that given transparent truth and transparent falsity that form will just be equivalent to saying every sentence is true or false. And moreover, the standard account of logic gives us the so-called dual of excluded middle, which is that no statement is both true and false. But this kind of statement, this liar, if the standard account of logic is correct, we have excluded middle and it's dual. Excluded middle tells us that this statement is either true or it's false and given the way truth and falsity work, if it's true, then it's false. And if it's false, then it's true. Either way, it's true and false. But again, from standard logic, if a statement is true and false, then, you know, absurdity follows like your worst nightmare. So one thing that these statements challenge and the reason the liar paradox is so, yeah, as you said, it's a very difficult thing. It challenges our very concept or the very account of logic. Now, some people say it challenges our very concept of truth. Well, that may be so. In fact, a colleague of mine, Michael Glansberg, he's a real believer in this kind of thing that it challenges not our account of logic, but it challenges our concept of truth. Maybe so, but it's not, I mean, if you think that truth is transparent, then what's there to challenge? I mean, you've just had those rules that you can substitute true P for P and false P for not P and anywhere. And so it's, there's not like some concept that's being challenged here. It's just a device that we introduced. So you'd have to, you'd have to reject that there's any such device. And someone like Glansberg would, but I find that, I find that a bit difficult to, to accept. Yeah. Yeah, so let's go to the solutions to the liar paradox. So there are so-called standard or classical solutions and there are non classical or non standard solutions. The classical solutions abide by the laws of classical logic. So, yeah, we talked about the law of excluded middle in its jewel, the law of non contradiction. So you have those things. So for classical theorists, they'll say, well, we need to abide by the laws of logic. So there's something wrong with the sentence itself. Yes, correct. Yeah. So on the other hand, the non classical solutions would say, well, there's something wrong with the logic, perhaps. So they will deny one of those laws that we have talked about. That's correct. Yeah. So how do these solutions work? Let's start with the classical solutions first. So, So let me talk about So under that description, let me talk about three general approaches. And there are many that fall under these various approaches and none of the approaches may fit exactly what I'm going to say, but, but given your characterization, which is pretty good for just a general characterization. There are basically three approaches. One is often called Tarskian, which I'll mention, and then one is I'm going to call it sort of propositional or non Tarskian but hierarchical and oftentimes these get to be called contextual. So the way Michael Glansberg or Charles Parsons or Tyler Burge, they, they instead of hierarchy of languages, they talk about a bunch of different contexts. So Tarskian, I'm going to call it propositional, even though none of them would like that. And then there's the revision theory of Gupta and Gupta and Belknap. And I need to note though that Gupta and Belknap's account is compatible with classical logic, but it's also they pride themselves in their account being compatible with no matter what logic you pick. Their account is going to be fine with that. I mean, there's some restrictions on that, but so their account is really special in that way, but I'm not going to say a lot about it only because it falls out of a more general account of circular concepts, and you have to accept that truth is circular in their sense. It's a powerful research program, an interesting solution to liar paradox. But let me just focus on the Tarskian and propositional. Okay. The Tarskian one is so called because it traces back to upper Tarski. Tarski though was clear that he didn't see a solution to the liar paradox as it emerges in natural language. So he was talking about how could you have a formal theory so very precise and and and so on. That's not really natural language. He said natural language. The thing about it is it can wiggle around and do whatever you want to and that's its strength and its weakness is you can't sort of bind it. in the way you can a formal language. So Tarski was just showing that there are ways of avoiding the liar in a formal setting. And I'll tell you about it in one moment, but many people and they talk about a Tarski and solution actually sort of think of it as applying to natural language. And the idea is just this anytime you have a liar sentence, that's a sentence that appears to arise within a given language. But imagine that the true description of linguistic reality is like this. You have a base language that does not contain its own true falsity predicate. So that's a sort of very elementary one that cannot in any way have a liar sentence because there's no falsity predicate there's no truth predicate. Okay, now step up one level to language to the to the first language up that language also doesn't have its own truth or falsity predicate, but it has a truth and falsity predicate. It's just that that one is restricted to the language below. So when you say a sentence is true what you're really saying is a sentence in the language below is true, or a sentence in the language below is false, and so on and so on. So you get this Tarski and hierarchy of languages with truth predicates, but no language in that hierarchy has a truth predicate for itself. Okay. So basically you're just saying that liar sentences don't arise they're just not really there. And you're trying to explain how that's that struck many I think including Tarski although I'm not a historian, but it strikes many as completely. It's just nearly impossible to believe that natural language doesn't have a truth and falsity predicate that can apply to sentences within the same language. Okay, so that's one approach a classical, then there's the what I'm calling the note that the propositional often these get cast out as contextual solutions, and basically the idea is this, when you look at the red sentence, you know the red sentence is false. Basically, this thing gets evaluated as as neither true nor false. It doesn't express a proposition to use the technical machinery that they wanted to use. Okay. But now, because language is so resourceful. A new sort of thing springs up. Can you see this. I wish I could see it's not complete. Can you. Yeah. Okay, so either the blue sentences falls or it is neither true nor false. Yeah, so this is a different one. Remember the solution to the red sentence was that it didn't express a proposition. So it's it's And they say classical logic is correct, but it applies only to sentences that express proposition. So they're relying on this machinery of propositions but So the this original liar this this sentence is false. That is neither true nor false because it doesn't express a proposition and because it doesn't express proposition excluded middle and the rest doesn't even apply to it. Okay. Okay, but now think about the blue sentence that as I said, it's the sentence says of itself only that either it is false or it's neither true nor false. Well, if you say it's neither true nor false, then the sentence has at least one true disjunct. So what they want to say is that in effect, a sentence like this to it's not going to express a proposition, but there's going to be a context in which this is true. But it's going to be speaking of a sentence in a prior context. So where Tarski sort of went up a series of languages and said that no language has its own truth predicate the proposition no proposition or contextualist accounts say, No, no, he's wrong about that language English, for example, any natural language has its own truth of falsity predicate. But it's tied to context. So when we say, we can say truly that the blue sentence is either false or it's neither true or false. It's just that we're in a context that expresses a proposition about the sentence before and in different contexts. So anyway, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's the classical and it's way too fast and and I'll try to be less complicated but I fear, like, if I say less than I'm being even more misleading than I already have. Yeah, that's all right. So I'm trying to grasp the classical solution. So the classical solutions want to preserve the loss of logic that we have discussed so log the school in the middle law of non contradiction. So one way of preserving those things is by saying like Tarski you have a hierarchy of sentences and each sentence is a truth predicate but it can't refer to itself so it's not a referential to predicate.  So for example, you have a meta language. So the meta language talks about the object language below and the truth predicate for the meta language in the meta language is attributed to the object language. So that's what's going on there. And until you have the whole series of the hierarchy, the other theory is you're calling it propositional. So, yeah, contextual. So the original liar sentence is not a proposition does not express a proposition. So it does not really, it's not a true nor false because it's not expressing any proposition. However, the revenge puzzle that you have given the blue one, it's a disjunction. So, yeah, it should express some proposition because one part would be true. The neither true nor false part would be true. So one way that this contextual is or the proposition people will will solve this one is to say that well it's the given context that gives the truth value for this. Am I getting the two solutions? That's correct. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that's exactly right. Yeah. Okay, so let's go now to the non classical solutions, which show the non that you prefer. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I was going to say the non classical ones are very easy to describe. We can basically just say that they're correct. Okay. Now so whereas the classical ones as you put it well they want to say look, our account of logic is correct. But we have to but our account of truth. As it applies to sentences is more complicated than we thought. For a transparent truth theories that's just not an option, because transparent truth is really easy to describe it's just, you know, you bring this device in and applying it to us to to a sentence is inter substitutable with the sentence. So that there's no, there's no more complication that's just the device that's what it is. So non classical solutions tend to think okay well it's not truth that's complicated that we need to figure out we know what that is. Rather there's some problem with logic and here you're either going to just to keep things simple you're just going to reject either excluded middle. Here you're going to think that logic does not demand that every sentence be true or false, or you're going to reject a non contradiction logic does not say that no sentence can be true and false. So the view that I actually hold is that the right account of logic is one where both of those principles fall away. And once you get away from those then of course you don't have so much of a problem from these liar type sentences as an interesting phenomenon that you know that's sort of rare entity where there are these true and false things or these neither true nor false things. These, to me, seem like mirror images of each other or so, you know to say that neither true nor false or both and so on. There might not be a lot of statements in the world like that, but here, here are a couple weird ones. I tend to think of this nonclassicality as fairly tame, because the accounts of logic that tend to be a part of this in this context tend to be what are called sub classical logics, and these are just slightly weaker than classical but if, if, so if a sentence is, or sorry, if, let me say argument of an argument is valid according to this weaker thing. Then it's valid classically. And so the one is a sort of sub relation from the other. And the picture here is just that what we learned from the paradoxes is that the standard mainstream account of logic so called classical logic just overshot the mark. It classified too many things as valid. And that's it's real. That's it's only problem. There are more in my eyes, but this is completely a contentious way of putting it. There are some more non classical solutions that are much more radically non classical. And there's a lot of activity right now. A lot of activity around so called substructural approaches to paradox and very fascinating work, important work, but probably best that that I leave that to your listeners to look up. Okay, so yeah, so the non classical solutions just to review, you have either you deny the law of non contradiction or the law of excluded middle or both, right. So yeah, the ones where we talked about yes. So either way, you'll you'll still get your transparent to but you have to let go of one of those principles and larger. So that's basically the idea. So where does the gap do you and the glut view come in here. So, so a gap is a sentence that's neither true nor false. It's it falls in the gap between truth and falsity. And a glut is the dual it's it's it's a glut of truth and falsity it's a sentence that's both true and false. So you have both true and false to be applying at the same time to the sentence, whereas a gap is the sentence that falls in between the two. That's the picture the metaphor. And gluts are our sentences that serve as counter examples to non contradiction and gaps are counter examples to excluded middle. And, you know, I tend to think that the truth truth maker sentence or sorry truth teller sentence a sentence that says I'm true. Right. Well, if it's true it's true. It's false. It's false. Okay, but looks like there's not a whole lot. This one looks sort of like you might want to say naturally, it's gappy. It's neither true nor false. But something that says I'm false. If it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true. Now without excluded middle you can't deduce that it's both. But in other work I've pointed out that we are never led in our systematic theorizing by logic alone were led also by a methodological drive to classify all sentences as either true or false and do so by principles of natural mess and so on. So if you look at the statement on the statement on the screen right this statement is false. We want to classify it as either true or false because we're driven by the quest for completeness. Well, if we say it's true. Okay, it's also false. If you say it's false. Okay, it's also true. So if we if we classify one way or the other. We've got to classify as both and now you have to ask, would classifying it as both be a natural account of it. And I say, of course it would this thing all it says of the only thing it says is I'm false. And given the way falsity and truth work. That's crying out to be classified as as a glut as a lot of truth and falsity is both true and false. Okay, but it's a glut because of how natural language works and how the truth predicate works right. That's correct. That's correct. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's why your view was labeled as semantic, merely semantic. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's correct. That's correct. Yeah, so in the spandrels book. I was working out a position where there are no gluts except for the spandrels of truth. So in that and remember the metaphor of God, not God being able to describe all of reality without truth and falsity. Nonetheless, we have these sentences. But they're sort of like, in some way, like, merely semantic or you might even say, although I don't say this, but you might even say something like they're almost like epiphenomenal, right there. But nonetheless, so the simply semantic glut theory that that I was advancing there was that everything else is perfectly classical, and only the spandrels of truth are the gluts. I've since matured a little bit, and I think actually, reality is more, more involved. I think that there are other sorts of gluts and certainly gaps and so on. But that will take us off topic. So I'll leave that there. Okay, so you and Greg Restall have advocated logical pluralism. You have a whole book on this one. So what does this view all about? Logical pluralism. Well, I should warn you that because of some of my recent views, my, my collaborator and one of my all time closest friends, Greg Restall, he's accused me of no longer being a logical pluralist. So, so take what I'm about to say, you may have to do a follow up interview with Greg. But I'm going to. So, so I'll give you sort of the way the view given in the book, which is just we say that that the concept of logical consequence is, is sort of precise only up to a certain point. And we, we, we talk of that point being a certain recipe. Basically, it's, it's, it's like a schema. Okay, it's, it's basically the argument from this sentence to this or this set of sentences to this sentence is valid. Sub X, if and only if there's no case sub X, in which all the premises are true, and the conclusion isn't now what what's with the sub X stuff. Well, we point out that depending on what you say about cases and counter examples, you get a different relation of logical consequence. So again, we said that the concept of logical consequence is settled down to that recipe, namely that this is a logical consequence of that if and only if there's no case in which all of this is true. And the other, the conclusion is not. But what do we mean by case here why you can mean possible world you can mean impossible world you can mean situation you could mean a whole slew of things that construction as in constructivist mathematics. And depending on what you say there, you get different relations of logical consequence. Now, one person a monist might say yeah but only one of them gets things right. And we said, well, no, I mean, what exactly would it be to get things right here I mean, if the notion of logical consequences only settled up to the point that we say it is, then you get lots of relations of logical consequence out of that settled poor. There's a bit more to it than that we say that any such relation to count as an admissible instance of that recipe has to have various features necessity formality normativity, but then many, many, many instances have those.   Okay, I've, I completely agree with that so I'm a pluralist on in that way, but you might think that there's a strong tradition. According to which the role of logical consequence is to be the sort of fundamental universal consequence relation in all of our true theories. So people talked in the in the old days, and they still do but logical vocabulary being topic neutral doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what your theory is about what topic logical vocabulary, the logical vocabulary is part of the language of your theory, if your theories to be aiming to be as complete as possible with respect to the phenomenon. Under discussion. So if you take logical if you say sure there are all these logical consequence relations per the bill rest rest all accounts no problem but if we're going to debate whether logic is non classical, or logic is classical. We have to demand more of what counts as logic. And I've said, look, a good way of doing that is to point to this role, the sort of universal consequence relation at the bottom of all of our true theories governing the topic neutral vocabulary. And, and so when you ask me what relation is that I'm a monist about that. Yeah, yeah, and I think Greg is actually he told me once that he he's a pluralist about that but we, we, we're in the middle of his family room and he was also very kindly making dinner and so I can't. I'm not sure like how how that went but I think Greg's a pluralist about even that, and I don't understand that. But it's a I mean I find it fascinating I would like I need to follow up with him. Yeah, so I said I understand your, your view now you're more mature view is that there's some minimum base of logical relations that you could accept logical consequence relation and for you that's the kind of first degree entailment. And for every phenomenon or for the next phenomenon that you will describe perhaps you add another bit of logic there so. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. So that's a picture that you're coming up with now. Correct. Correct. So, finally, on a more personal note, you got a you got a pretty dynamic philosophical career with all your published books and papers and all the teaching posts you got over the years so you're there from Yukon now you're in Notre Dame. But how did you get into philosophy in the first place what drove you to a career in academic philosophy. I grew up in a sort of and discussing theology and that and, you know, sort of systematic theology kind of things was common. And so I was exposed to that and that in the end is very philosophical. I went to a small liberal arts college for my undergrad college it's a university level, but in the US liberal arts college is a common term.  And I, you know, I was, I had some talent mathematically, and I had some talent, philosophically, but when I was at college as an undergrad I didn't. I didn't really understand what sort of analytic philosophy was I don't think I was ever exposed to that. But I went on to work in philosophical theology I went to do a master's in that thinking that's really what I like. And then I got exposed to analytic philosophy in a completely indirect way. And then I just sort of, it just all came naturally, my enjoyment of it, my fascination with, and the way it's done, you know, it's, it's, so if you're, if you find sort of logic and mathematical sort of things very natural. And that philosophy is very, it's very, it too is very natural. So I guess I just fell into it, and I got very lucky, you know, that I, I had the opportunity to pursue certain ideas and yeah, so yeah, I just fell into it naturally, I guess. So what's your advice to beginning philosophers, how can they keep the dynamism that you have. Well, I think an important thing. So I've learned this over the years. I mean, you know, when I was, when I was earlier, before I had my first job. Right. I was doing philosophy. I just loved it.  And they're just like, fascinated with everything. Right. You know, they see a little window latch, and they're fascinated. You know, it's in everything was just fascinating to them. And I think when I was before I had my first job. I couldn't get enough sort of ideas and I was I was fascinated with them. In fact, my problem was I would never stay with one idea long enough to actually, you know, I was just, I, there were so many things that were exciting. And then I got my first job and I had to work hard to really commit to a sort of discipline program of making sure that, you know, when I have ideas to write them down enough that I can then, you know, write out a paper and get that done. But also, you know, you sort of, you get to a point where you feel like there's not a lot more that surprising, like you sort of predict what so and so will say and this and that. And you can get into a rut. And so I set all that background, because I think one important thing to say to younger people in philosophy is, don't lose the sort of eye of the child like, yeah, it's a job, you know, if you, you know, if you're successful at landing a job and and it's not easy, you know, and it takes patience and hard work, but, and a lot of luck.  Try to avoid. No, try to cling to that to the sort of eye of a child don't allow yourself to think that you know what's coming like always try to see something new in in things in philosophical claims in non philosophical claims. And, and so that's the first thing I have a child. And that's something I constantly trying to do myself.  And you just want to hear you want to sort of figure out what they're talking about. That's a really good state to be in. That's the number one I have a child number two, make sure that you write down your ideas. So most of my career, I've always carried around notebooks. A good friend and former student and now colleague in the field Dave Ripley. When he was a student, he used to carry around three by five cards. And I must say he was probably smarter than I was because I always carried around notebooks that I couldn't fit in my pocket. And sometimes I'd forget I'd leave it in a room and Dave would always have his three by five cards. Don't ever leave home without them. Like you must always have these cards and be disciplined about writing down an idea. Many of the ideas won't pan out, but some of them will. And yeah, and then so those are the two top tips I would give to budding philosophers. Yeah, and then just keep at it, I guess. Is the career worth it being an academic philosopher. I think it is. I mean, I, I, I love what I do. That's not to say I love everything I do. There's, you know, there's some administrative things and and that can be hard, because sometimes you're not clear why you're even doing this. But look, I mean, there are lots of, you know, every job is going to have that that aspect of it. I don't care what the job is, they're going to be some things that you're doing and you're not sure whether you should but you know you need to do it. And, but I think a career and academic philosophy is very much worth it. Do I think that everyone who does a PhD in philosophy or a bachelor's of arts in philosophy or a master's of arts in philosophy, any degree in academic philosophy, do I think that the goal should be to be an academic philosopher? No, I do not. I think that I think that people should, people will benefit from doing academic philosophy, but whether you should do it as a job depends on depends on your other talents, your desires and your situation. And, but for me, yes, it works. And I'm, I'm very grateful to have the job I do. But I can imagine somebody with the same interests as my as me. And same degrees, same everything. And, you know, they do something else entirely like the other job I would love, by the way, is being a farmer, but I know that I wouldn't, I wouldn't do it. I love being on farms. I love that sort of thing because it's so different from what I do for a living. But it's also extremely difficult to make a living as a farmer. But anyway. Okay, so thanks for that, JC. Thanks for sharing your time with us. So join me again for another episode of philosophy and what matters where we talk about things that matter from a philosophical point of view. Thanks. Thank you.