What? You have been trying to use deductive reasoning not inductive my dear... — 3017amen

1. I'm not your dear.
2. That's what I've been trying to tell you and you keep telling me I'm not....

Perhaps just answering my last round of questions i.e.: proving God doesn't exist , will make my point. — 3017amen

Part of disproving God relies on formal logic, and another part relies on inductive reasoning.

Come on Artemis, you're better than that, you can do better, don't bail on me. This is a debate stage put on your big girl pants.

"Part of disproving God relies on formal logic, and another part relies on inductive reasoning."

That's a start, I'm waiting...how about trying from the particular to the general... and relate it to empirical data you've tested or experienced.

This is a debate stage put on your big girl pants. — 3017amen

1. It's not a debate stage.
2. Don't speak to me like that. It's rude and sexist.

I meant it in a loving way

It's about quantum indeterminacy until the observer appears. That's literally the whole point of the example. — Artemis

No it's not. Here an excerpt from the link you posted in response to my first post :

But—and this was Schrödinger’s point—the quantum theory of Bohr had no principled means of confining the smeariness to microscopic scale. Schrödinger proposed placing the radioactive atom near a Geiger counter, and then hooking the Geiger counter up with a device that would smash a flask of hydrocyanic acid if the atomic decay is detected, thereby killing a cat. If the wave function of the system always evolves in accord with Schrödinger’s equation and if the wave function provides a complete description of the system, then the smeariness of the electron will inevitably be amplified to macroscopic scale into a smeariness of the cat itself: just as the electron was not in any particular location, the cat would end up objectively “smeared out” between being alive and dead! And that would, indeed, be in the most severe possible conflict with common sense beliefs about cats!

https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-theory-and-common-sense-auid-1254

In a similar matter (no pun intended), there have been a few recent threads on this topic and wanted to get your thoughts on it too.
Can something exist by itself without observation? — 3017amen

Yes definitely. I'm a realist in that sense.

For example I'm sure you know there have been some metaphysical theories that posit math having always existed... . — 3017amen

I'm between a subjectivist and social constructivist on mathematics. I would say that what we're thinking about, what we're socially constructing is an abstract, systematic language with some foundational basis in real relations, but those relations that serve as our launching pad aren't the same thing as mathematics.

Yes.... Until the observer shows up.... The smearing occurs pre-observer. That IS the whole point.

Ok fine... it's not that important for the discussion. What I meant was that experiments have verified the math, and that however you want to interpret that math, apparently something weird is going on, either you end up with things in a state of superposition, spooky action at a distance or many worlds etc... .

Fellow Philosophers,

One interesting human dynamic has reared its ugly head already. But it's not necessarily 'ugly' though.

Just a very slight detour, yet important point nonetheless is, how far can one take deductive logic in discovery of knowledge about (the OP Life and Existence) life?

The little journey Artemis and I had, uncovered and possibly suggests a few things:

1. The human element is real; its sentience can create intrinsic dichotomies.
2. The so-called art of life or living can be argued as a balancing act between which types of logic to use as we navigate the sojourn. These are tools at our disposal as it were.

Take the example from Star Trek. The character Spock, was born half Vulcan and half man. The dichotomy reared its ugly head on many occasions, particularly when there were happenstance that required inductive and not deductive reasoning.

Spock not only struggled with sentience, but in theory he could not compute half-truth's either. To him, they did not exist.

Waking up this morning made me think of another illogical phenomena of sorts. When my Boze radio alarm went off , I awoke to my familiar pre-selected radio station. That particular station does not have the greatest reception as it sometimes fades in and out but only very slightly.

What was weird, is that during one particular song, it morphed into some other radio station. The transformation was painfully slow; it was the strangest thing. The original song was initially very clear and discernable, then the other station [song] slowly became recognizable as the audible transition developed. Then it became a new station.

As it relates to the OP, my question is, what is the definition of a 'mottled' sound? In logic, how do we describe that phenomenon of sound or radio waves seemingly defying the law of excluded middle?

P and not-P = (Two stations playing two songs at the same time).

Thus, how would it be described: The radio station was playing and not playing?

The truth is, it WAS playing, so the said statement is partially false. Is this another example, analogy, metaphor, of a 'half-truth' viz. our conscious existence?