The wages for denying that law are death.
You are not thinking this through properly!
It is impossible for something to exist and not exist.
Your examples are not contradictions; they result from incomplete definitions.
The simple answer to wave-particle duality is that they are different ways of looking at the same object. The contexts ARE different; and modern physics accepts this.
The intersection of two categories: a particle, yet also a wave (there are many ways the intersection can specifically occur within the category overlap). This interpretation of Dick's work has the backing of a professional mathematician, who I gave his work to, to analyse.
Whatever "paraconsistent" logic is; it too must depend on the law of non-contradiction. It's so-called contradictory aspects no doubt are simple category errors.
As you judge, so you are judged. The point with symmetry laws is "that from the scientist's perspective the universe is based on symmetry laws". This does not exclude other possible perspectives in principle. Some perspectives are more far-reaching and universal than others.
The perspective of Existence is absolute: you cannot be more absolute. So honesty is the key. People who dream up strange logics are like illusionists, distracting peole's attention from their category-errors while they perform fancy tricks.
It is possible that Dr. Dick is also distracting people's attention by fancy talk; that the essential part of his paper is much simpler than he presents it to be.
I do not dispute your contention that there are different ways of looking at things. Many of your objections to Dick's work I share as you know.
Thank you for your gentlemanly conduct at this forum; it is hard for me to weather the financial cost of how hard it is to get a proper conversation with Dick. But beware of the lion that you play with, lest he consume you!