Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not drawing another circle, I am not changing the diagram. If what is inside the circle is "everything" then what is outside the circle?

Not everything.

Schrondiger's cat is an explanation, using every day objects of, for the state of superposition in quantum mechanics.

Yeah. But it's still either in the box or not in the box.... science defines things differently. Science can define "nothing" as something and an "atom" as something divisible. When Quantum Theorists talk about something being "there" or "not there" they mean in a different sense. Or at least that's the only way something could ever be there and not there at the same time. If the meanings of the words are changed, which doesn't cut it.

Did you even look/read at the list of paradoxes? They are not all about language.

I'm already familiar with them all (although I haven't read up on them in ages and I'm very forgetful). Logical systems themselves use logical language.

Are these "absolutes of logic" simply a philosophical tool?

They're absolutes of logic. For the reasons explained by Matt Dilahunty. It's literally impossible for them to not be absolute unless you redefine the very meaning of "absolute" in which case you're not addressing the problem.