Or the QM scientist finding "X" here simultaneously, and without connection, affecting "Y" there? — James Riley

Make a faster than light communication system?

But yes, the LONC could be wrong. Or right and wrong at the same time. :up:

I don't believe QM violates the law of non-contradiction either. I suspect that most physicists don't believe it, but I'm not sure. Much of this depends on how one interprets QM, and/or what theory of QM you believe. None of us are experts in QM, so I think we're a bit out of our depth.

Or right and wrong at the same time. :up: — frank

That's my thought.

I will. The essence of philosophy. I'd encourage you to step outside your box and see the mess.

That's my thought. — James Riley

It would probably take a change in cognition to know it, as opposed to just saying it.

Yep. In the example given, one object both here and there, there's no contradiction. It's just unexpected.

When addressing the merits, instead of citing the rule for it's own authority, we might find that the rule of noncontradiction is not violated when thinking of "a quantum entity as an actual wave consisting of a superposition of all of the possible states that collapse to a point (particle) when detected." Walt Tucker. That is one explanation of how the rule is not violated. There are other issues (which might be likewise explained away), but we still haven't provided the proof of the rule of identity or non-contradiction.

It would probably take a change in cognition to know it, as opposed to just saying it. — frank

Agreed. As we push the envelope further and further, we might just have to do that. But saying it before it's been done, or even before it can be done, does not mean it should not be said. It's weird how science fiction sometimes ends up as science fact. That's usually because of that dreaming, speculating and considering.

we still haven't provided the proof of the rule of identity or non-contradiction. — James Riley

p & ~p ⊃ q

If that don't convince you, you're not worth talking to.

Yeah, I pulled that off wiki a long time ago, and it's counterpart over 40 years ago. Again, with the circular reasoning and the tautology. It's not more impressive now than the first time you put it up. But hey, I think you think there is an audience out there impressed with your brilliance. Go for it.

...you're not worth talking to. — Banno

:wink:

It's not a proof, so much as a test.

...you're not worth talking to. — Banno

And yet here you are talking to me.

It's not a proof, so much as a test. — Banno

It's not a proof or a test. That's the problem. It's a rule.

Which way you can move a rook is not a proof or a test. It's a rule.

Agreed. As we push the envelope further and further, we might just have to do that. But saying it before it's been done, or even before it can be done, does not mean it should not be said. It's weird how science fiction sometimes ends up as science fact. That's usually because of that dreaming, speculating and considering. — James Riley

Yep. Some people have calcified brains. They serve a function in human life.