2 thoughts on “2. A tiny bit on the first three laws of thought.”

  1. Hi Scott,
    A thought about wave-particle duality. I think it really stems from our incomplete understanding of the nature of light (and electrons). When asking the question “light, do you behave as a wave?” through the framework and methods we currently hold, the answer is “yes”. Likewise, when asking the question “light, do you behave as a particle?” through the framework and methods we currently hold, the answer is “yes”. But these answers are dependent on our current framework of thought and methods of inquiry. What light is, is light, and nothing that we observe on the human scale behaves as light does on the nano scale, thus we have no framework with which to think about it. It’s the framework of thought that is wrong. Light is something that behaves as a wave in some instances and a particle in some instances, but saying that, “it is both a wave and a particle”, is flawed logic. It is something that we don’t understand well enough to know its true nature. Or another way to say it, is that our models are inadequate to describe the nature of light (models always break down on some level, because if they didn’t then they would actually be the thing being modeled, not a model of the thing). You touched on this idea in your post; if something appears to have dual nature, it is due to our lack of understanding.

    1. This is exactly right. Right now, the heuristic is illogical. When we fully understand light, that understanding will comport with the laws of thought; The law of identity, The law of non-contradiction, and The law of excluded middle.

Leave a Reply to Derrick Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top