***The wages for denying that law are death.***
Oh my! Where did that come from? You are citing Romans to me when the context Paul was referring to was the violation of God's laws (not the law of non-contradiction). In any case, you sound preachy.
***It is impossible for something to exist and not exist.***
Let's define our terms:
Reality: All that is the case
Truth/True: A statement about what is the case
Exist: Something is the case
Not Exist: Something is not the case
Law: Something must be the case
Impossible (1): You cannot construct a true statement for something that is not the case.
Impossible (2): Something that is not the case cannot also be the case.
Translating your statement according to these definitions we have two versions:
(1) You cannot construct a true statement that is not the case for something that really is the case.
(2) Something that is not the case cannot also be the case for something when only one case is allowed.
Your statement (1) is true by the definition of what we mean by true. The emphasis is on the human construction of a true statement.
Your statement (2) has no 'true by definition' reason to accept it. We cannot say what reality can or cannot be the case simply because we have never confirmed a clear case of logical contradiction. Your (2) must be rejected. Which means that the 'law' of non-contradiction is an absolute law.
***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.***
Modern physics accepts it? Modern physics takes no position on the nature of the wave-particle duality. The position held by some is that it is a paradox and not resolvable. Many physicists and philosophers are content with calling it a field that has properties of a wave and properties of a particle. We measure those properties in different contexts, but the ontological reality of the wave-particle duality is not solved. We do not know if it becomes a 'particle' at the exclusion of a 'wave' (or vice versa), or if the field simply exhibits its properties in a different manner when the measurement is different. It could certainly be the case that the wave-particle is what it is - it is both and maybe it is neither. The question is unresolved. The evidence points to the field's wave-particle duality not being restricted to human logic (i.e., classical logic).
***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.***
There are rules in paraconsistent logic, but the law of non-contradiction (LNC) is not one of them.
***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.***
As Aurino pointed out today, the principle of symmetry cuts deep and that people who are using 'other perspectives' are often using symmetry - which may account for their success (of course there are other issues altogether such as not having enough knowledge of math and physics so that gross misunderstandings develop, etc).
***The perspective of Existence is absolute: you cannot be more absolute.***
The perspective itself is not absolute. It is a human perspective and human perspectives are notoriously non-absolute. As (2) showed above, trying to enforce absolute perspectives on reality is mistaken.
***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.***
Come on, Alan. You are not a logician. You are speaking from an apparent religious perspective. The fact is that logicians are working on other 'logics' and that the fallacies, if there are any, are not altogether apparent as you suggest.
I also believe that the law of non-contradiction holds 'out there', but it is a belief. I cannot show that it is the case. So much of what we hold as absolute is a belief.
Warm regards, Harv