One grain of sand is not a heap. Adding one grain to what is not a heap never makes one. So nothing is a heap. That is the sorites paradox.
It rests on vagueness: a word with borderline cases, where a claim seems neither true nor false. It strains two classical laws: bivalence, that every statement is true or false, and the excluded middle, that a claim or its negation holds. Epistemicists answer that a cutoff exists, unknown to us. I think the cutoff is chosen, not found.
I do not think it is much of a paradox. Ask what the word is for, set the gate there, and for that purpose it disappears. Define a chicken egg by what hatches, and the egg came first. Define it by who laid it, and the chicken did.
Most laws pick eighteen for adulthood. Biologists keep several species concepts, each a gate for a purpose. A logic gate reads a continuous voltage as a 0 or a 1 by a threshold, and a noise margin keeps signals clear of it. The vagueness is handled, not denied.
Yet the heap keeps turning up in arguments, and only muddles them. The move to watch for is “there is no sharp line, so there is no distinction.” Scott Alexander caught Steven Pinker at it in a post: superintelligence is meaningless because there is no day it arrives. The catch holds, but Pinker’s stronger case is that intelligence is many mechanisms, each good at some problems, and the heap does not touch it. When you hear the move, ask for the purpose, then the gate.