Hi, just a few very quick coments now; I have to delay replies to cut costs (it's getting too expensive to participate- I have no problem dealing precisely with the debate though).

"(1) We are 'here' and we naturally find ourselves making decisions and observations about nature."

Already you have introduced LNC by default.
"We are" requires "We are" cannot contradict and become 'zero'.

"Things ARE" is a complete sentence: it has a verb "to be", it has an object "things". I have never owned a cat or a dog. Shrodinger talks about cats though.

If a space probe does a test on Mars and flashes back the words "Alien life exists" we know what they mean.

LNC requires no proof; it is a contradiction to seek a proof of an ultimate proof, there is nothing left in terms of which to prove it.

The axioms of logic are an exercise in fantasy; a double-defining and recursive program. Ultimate Logic requires no axioms; it stands unsupported, requiring no support. It can be found though, providing the support to everything else; (so differs from a fantasy, that would not have that property of supporting everything else).

I am not just speaking from the framework of "my experience". Whatever "experience" that is, it has EXISTENCE; I am speaking from the 'framework' of Existence itself.

There is no "because", or "reason" to regard LNC "as right"; it is "right-ness". It requires no reason, as it is ultimate.

My contention remains un-defeated: any attempt to deny LNC can be easily refuted, as no argument can be bought against me as by definition the logician cannot appeal that I am contradicting myself. I cannot refute the logician, as he can just contradict anything he likes (if he can't, then he has allowed LNC into his system). He cannot even have a system without conservation of pattern, which requires LNC.

The logicians thus involve LNC somewhere, so their cause is lost. To even have unsuccesful thoughts, requires conservation of the entity having those thoughts. LNC is required by that conservation.

Whatever paraconsistency is, it is still "consistency" enough to involve pattern conservation; and thus LNC is involved.

If "the world" disagrees; "the world" is a conserved pattern that connects "agreement" and "disagreement"; this conservation of pattern involves LNC, or you could not even say "the world". You would have to say "world A has tall-people", "world B has not-tall people".

You see, even the power to contradict is given by God, this freedom is granted by Existence Himself. To have a contradiction at all, requires something common to the two contradictory elements; the pairing (or matching , defining) together of those elements. That something common (that common MATCH) is itself LNC.

Actually this dawns on me as a very serious finding: that the very power to deny LNC is granted by LNC.

thanks,

Alan