#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 3
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/14/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-3/

1 | My remarks on Facebook regarding the Zeroth Law Of Semiotics and its application to the Liar Paradox prompted Kent Olson to observe, “The liar paradox is a self-referential paradox, yes? I think Russell answered these”. I added the following comment.

#Logic #Semeiotics #Semiotics #SignRelations
#Peirce #Epimenides #LiarParadox #AllLiarNoParadox

#AllLiarNoParadox
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/08/01/all-liar-no-paradox/

A statement \(S_0\) asserts that a statement \(S_1\) is a statement that \(S_1\) is false.

The statement \(S_0\) violates an #AxiomOfLogic, so it doesn’t really matter whether the #OstensibleStatement \(S_1,\) the so-called #Liar, really is a statement or has a #TruthValue.

#Logic #LogicalAxiom #LawOfLogic #LogicalGraph
#LiarParadox #Epimenides #EpimenidesParadox

Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

Meaning is a privilege not a right.
Not all pictures depict.
Not all signs denote.

Never confuse a property of a sign,
just for instance, existence,
with a sign of a property,
for instance, existence.

Taking a property of a sign
for a sign of a property
is the zeroth sign of
nominal thinking
and the first
mistake.

Also Sprach 0*
9 October 2002

See —

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/07/30/zeroth-law-of-semiotics/

#Semiotics #SignRelations
#LiarParadox #Epimenides