Lambda Calculus semantics are defined over a formal structure of values that are partially ordered with respect a sort of "more defined" relation. The least element is the completely undefined value, bottom. Expressions of the Lambda Calculus are defined with respect to an interpretation that can, for recursive expressions, produce multiple values for a single expression, so we define that the correct interpretation is the least upper bound of the set of values (you have to define the poset in such a way that the LUB is guaranteed to exist).
I was recently reading a description of Kripke's solution to the Liar Paradox that is based on having a "neither true nor false" value (which is reminiscent of bottom) and a hierarchy of interpretations which is reminiscent of the poset of Lambda Calculus semantics. It's not obvious to me that there is any relationship between these two other than the two points I mentioned and the fact that they are both trying to resolve the semantics of self-reference, but the description is a bit vague, so I was wondering if there is a connection between these two things that I'm not seeing.