The liars paradox is interesting but it can be:
- Identified as ‘a paradox’ or more rightly an 'incoherent statement.
- Distinguished from non-paradoxical and coherent statements.
- Excluded from the category of coherent statements that have a definite truth value.
So not only does the paradox not escape the 3 laws, it confirms them because it can br identified, distinguished and excluded.
Other logical systems also superficially appear to defy the 3 fundamental laws. Intuitionistic, paraconsistent, and polyvalent logics are often branded as examples of true functional deviance.
But these are merely subjective systems that like the liars paradox can be distinctly identified and distinguished by the 3 objective laws.
A perfect illustration of intuitionistic logic is my refusal to accept an either or choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. I can choose both.
But as soon as I make that choice I have Excluded the original binary options.
All of these systems are the same. Any actual output (even under their own rules) can only become REAL when all 3 laws are applied.
Don’t let any of the illusions confuse you. The 3 fundamental laws determine some things, but do not determine every outcome. They simply make objective reality possible as well as make subjective choice possible without reality collapsing in the process.
Truth value and logical content is found at the level of the concept represented by grammar, not the grammar itself. The Liar Paradox does not represent a coherent concept because it is a grammatical loop.
