Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Skepdick]

You can't see that is self-contradictory ?

To evaluate it as "self-contradictory" first I have to evaluate a truth-value.

[PeteOlcott]

You can't see that is self-contradictory ?

To evaluate it as "self-contradictory" first I have to evaluate a truth-value.

∃x (x ↔ ¬x)

[Skepdick]

You can't see that is self-contradictory ?

To evaluate it as "self-contradictory" first I have to evaluate a truth-value.

∃x (x ↔ ¬x)

Firstly, that's syntactically incomplete in a Type-theoretic universe.
What's x's Type?
Does it support negation?
What does it mean to negate things of type x ?

Secondly. Here is a Universe I've constructed in which ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)
https://repl.it/repls/SympatheticLovelyCondition

[PeteOlcott]

To evaluate it as "self-contradictory" first I have to evaluate a truth-value.

∃x (x ↔ ¬x)

Firstly, that's syntactically incomplete in a Type-theoretic universe.
What's x's Type?
Does it support negation?
What does it mean to negate things of type x ?

Secondly. Here is a Universe I've constructed in which ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)
https://repl.it/repls/SympatheticLovelyCondition

If you want to be really nutty we can say that: ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)
means I am going to go buy some fresh fruit from Aldi's, thus it is true.

If we tone back the nuttiness so that this: ∃x (x ↔ ¬x)
has its conventional meaning, then we can know it is false.

[Skepdick]

If we tone back the nuttiness so that this: ∃x (x ↔ ¬x)
has its conventional meaning, then we can know it is false.

Again. What is this "convention" thing you speak of?

Clearly you are interpreting the formalism the way it suits you to interpret it.

All swans are white, but this one is black.