Thanks, Harv, Aurino.
(Aurino my last reply was short of time to think it out very well).(Something for Dick + Co. here too).
Harv: "identify the world as being approximated by mathematical processes, but that doesn't mean the we define the world as being mathematical, the former restricts the world to a human approximation (just so that we can identify a quality that we happen to notice), and the latter defines reality in a manner that is too restrictive. "
I realise that. Such a "mathematical world" is a particular viewpoint of reality. Example: You see three people enter a vehicle at night in the distance, and three leave. You might math-model that as 3 - 3 = 0. But there could be other people who were already in the vehicle and are still there, so careful about what conclusions you draw. However, as reality is what IS; you can be sure that YOU THOUGHT "YOU SAW 3 people enter, and 3 people leave". You can be sure about the existant fact that "you had a particular impression of this event (not just a sense-impression, but involving your experience of the world etc. also).
Quote: "impute our sense of logic ('restricted' or 'unrestricted') on what we cannot know about what we don't know." You say "on what we CANNOT know"? That is itself an example of imposing a law, a dogma about reality. One must not assume that we CANNOT know; prefer "might not know".
"On what..." this implies "on something that IS" so the logic of existence MUST apply by definition as whenever you imply IS-ness, the logic of existence applies.
Quote: " The only reference that we are making is to 'all that is out there'. That may be nothing at all if the solipsists are correct."
As soon as "we" are "making a reference" you have got "we" existing and "action" so there cannot be nothing. The question is how much somethings?
Quote: "On the other hand, it might be all the things that exist, or things that don't fall into a category of existing and not existing, etc. We don't allow reality to be restricted by our words."
By definition things MUST BE or not BE; you cannot have some other category other than that they MIGHT be (but you don't know yet, or haven't chosen an alternative from several choices yet).
It is true that reality should not be restricted by our words, to have this discussion more accurately requires telepathy and then the discussion would be unnecessary as the issue would I think be solved by such insight as is associated with telepathic ability!
Quote: "Reality is 'all that is out there' or perhaps 'all that is not out there'. What we don't know is the real property of a thing. Maybe it has muliple properties that contradict each other (e.g., exist and not exist)."
Any multiple properties could only pseudo-contradict (e.g. ten choices that are mutually exclusive "contradict" but not really, choices by their nature may be mutually exclusive. You make a choice, and it does not contradict, that choice-decision exists). We do know that the ultimate reality of a thing is "existence".
Quote: "The LNC states -(P & -P). You cannot say things that break this law do not exist entirely since they are speculated to exist as P and not exist as P. What prevents them from existing and not existing? "
You seem to be confusing "speculation" with reality.
Speculating that something can be and not be is just nonsense; what prevents this from happening is that the very verb "to be" prevents it.
Your question becomes "What prevents the existence of something existing and not existing?" which becomes "What prevents the existence of the existence and supposed non-existence of something existing and non-existing" which becomes.....etc. ad infinitum. Your question grows longer and longer in this way as it is nonsensical.
The very nature of existence EXCLUDES non-existence. Any logician who denies that; cuts themselves off from the universe because they cannot be refuted (since they permit themselves to contradict everything) nor can they repel my refutation (they cannot answer my refutation- as what are they going to say? That I'm contradicting myself? Hardly, that would be appealing to the LNC which would end their case. They cannot even string two thoughts together with justification in that such consistency is forbidden by their denial of LNC.
Quote: "The laws of physics is really a poor choice of words since we are really talking about models made by physicists that capture observable behaviors of nature. We cannot say whether physical 'laws' are descriptive or nomological. Once we move to the world of what really is, then we must be content to say that we are dealing only with descriptions as they appear to us. We can't assume that descriptions as they appear to us translate into nomological laws. "
Actually Dr. Dick's paper serves the purpose of exposing which "laws" of physics are descriptive and which are ABOUT description-process itself thus inevitable laws. WE can say which is which, that is what he did in his paper.
True we cannot assume descriptions as they appear to us translate into nomological laws; we can show that a particular description translates, aware that refinement one day of the description may supposedly end its fitting the law of description itself.
Or we can understand sufficient to show there can only be laws of description, there can never be any other law because of the entanglement of Existence and Freedom. So the electric cosmos theory would also reduce to being "true by definition", for example.
Quote: "I don't think that is a good definition. It is good enough in most circumstances, but it leads to the notion that if nothing is 'out there' then nothing exists - hence no reality. But, this would not be the case. Reality would be something else such as what a pure solipsist might say is reality."
You are not drawing a distinction here between different CATEGORIES; if "reality" is not how people suppose it to be, but more like a solipsist supposes it to be; this does not alter the fact of its existence. It just means that the match-up of patterns done by the solipsist (pattern-Solipsist + pattern-thoughts = pattern-reality) was more accurate than say S. Hawking (pattern-Hawking or someone + pattern-quanta, fields,whatever = pattern-reality).
(I would have hoped at this stage Dr. Dick would see why it is not all meaningless and that I understand exactly what he has discovered in its essential details). The meaning is in the IS-ness; meaning is the 'mass' or structures (relationships) that is. Meaning is relationship.
So far as looking elsewhere for "meaning"; no problem with "meaningless", because reality just IS and does not have to have some other meaning. (There may be relationships (meaning) that humans are not noticing though). Reality just IS. No bowing to false "meaning" gods that distract from freedom of IS-ness. No other meaning required. Is-ness the one reality.
"Reality would be something else"... exactly; "Reality" would "BE"... see, it would still "BE"; that is what counts. Making pattern-match errors or categorisation errors is a possibility of man; but reality IS nonetheless.
Quote: "Where you to be careful Alan is that you use the LNC to define reality, and then place the same restrictions as before. What I am saying is that you cannot assume the LNC applies, and therefore you cannot apply those restrictions of the LNC onto reality. That is the basic point. "
In the case of the LNC; one does not assume it applies. It IS applied the moment you conserve a pattern sufficient to even consider a question at all. Those logicians who think they can avoid assuming it forget that they are constantly applying it.
Reality and the LNC are unseparable; any attempt to separate them involves category errors- applying multiple categories or perspectives that give illusions of avoiding assumptions.
Such strange logics may appear productive; because there exists the phenomenon of "alternatives" in "Choice systems"; and alternatives are allowed to contradict each other. But that is not a real contradiction.
Saying you cannot apply the LNC to reality is saying you cannot apply the LNC to the LNC. It is contradictory. To do so is itself to NOT apply the LNC to itself, it is to subtract the LNC from itself and to exit the question.
There is no more basic rule in logic than LNC; it is the rule that determines what you can and cannot do. What more basic rule licenses you to rule over the LNC? Apparently it is the rule: Maximum Freedom; the desire "NOT TO RESTRICT reality in any way".
It is true that "Maximum Freedom" is a very basic rule; it is however in my opinion entangled with the LNC; neither may govern the other. LNC cannot dictate to freedom, freedom cannot dictate to LNC. In reality. it is the LNC itself that gives the MAXIMUM of freedom. Freedom is reduced when LNC is evaded.
"Logic" is not in the category "descriptive" (as Dr. Dick might note); it is the framework of description. Muddling these categories leads to the illusion that there is a question as to whether logic accurately describes reality. But "logic" DOES NOT DESCRIBE. Layers of pattern-matching describe; not logic. Logic is just the framework.
There is nothing to decide re: does logic describe reality; "describing" isn't its job. Logic CREATES reality. "Description" is not fundamental, it is modelling.
If a description of reality changes, that does not mean the previous description was devoid of truth. It just means that you forgot to note the FULL EXTENT of the previous description. This is like Niels Bohr's insistence on noting all parameters of an experiment.
Once you rewrite in full a description: "people A, B, C, D thought that patterns 1,2, 3,4 match patterns 5, 6, 7, 8 as compared by them; you can see that this pattern-matching event remains true in that THEY THOUGHT HOW THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME, that fact remains true even if the patterns they matched later turned out to be in error because they mis-measured a distance or something.
It remains true that they thought such-and-such; though such-and-such does not correspond with the facts as now known. Thus personal responsibility opens the door on certain truth: you think whatever you think, whether your thought is wrong or not; it is true that you thought it and you thought "you" was whatever you thought "you" was!
Even if you later found "you" were a ghost, it remains true that once "you thought you were a human and thinking such-and-such". In fact so long as your definitions of "human" "Think" etc. are a logically consistent network; you are right within certain margins of error that "you" (whatever that is) "thought" (whatever that is) that (whatever that is) "such-and-such" (whatever that is). Thus honesty and certainty are connected. Dick seems to think the self-referent circles of definition-assignment networks make everything meaningless; no; honesty and letting be (love) makes everything perfectly meaningful (related). Freedom and LNC complement each other.
Something being "a particle" and "not a particle" is a pseudo-contradiction; they are different perspectives on the same thing. To claim contradiction is to overstep the boundaries of categories of perspective. Existence is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the boundary of all.