At high-school I learned that a single photon really can go through two separate slits at the same time. Does the photon exist, or not-exist, at slit 1? The answer is: neither. To my mind this does cast some doubt on the law of non contradiction.

As far as I recall the only interpretation of QM that allows all entities to actually exist is the “many-worlds” interpretation. This really means “infinite worlds”, as I understand it, which seems to me to be as much of a metaphysical absurdity as violating the LNC.

Cheers

But evidence can lead to modifying ones axioms. Plane geometry, for example, does not describe reality on the surface of sphere, and more complex geometries are required for other surfaces.

The axioms required to rationalize quantum superposition and quantum tunnelling are not the same as the axioms we derive from everyday experience.

If one axiomatically asserts that Jupiter exists, then it cannot axiomatically not exist.

But physical objects do not exist axiomatically. Their existence is assumed as a result of empirical evidence, and physics currently suggests that such evidence is probabilistic.

Nominated for the “Elizabeth Liddle Memorial Goal Post Redefinition” award.

So you’re evaluating the evidence without any axioms?

As an axiom it is irrelevant to matters decided empirically.

If one axiomatically asserts that Jupiter exists, then it cannot axiomatically not exist.

But physical objects do not exist axiomatically. Their existence is assumed as a result of empirical evidence, and physics currently suggests that such evidence is probabilistic.

My understanding is that there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that may say something like that, but there’s also a problem with actually deciding between any of those interpretations.

The favorite response, if not interpretation, I’ve heard about the whole thing is ‘shut up and calculate’.

You seem to be the same person who made this same argument on this blog a year or so ago. Or does that Bruce David in your mind, not exist anymore?

Incidentally, notice that when describing Jupiter’s lack of existence Bruce David had to refer back to Jupiter by saying “its” constituent particles. In other words, there is a concrete, accepted concept of the thing observed — the “it” — that we are calling Jupiter. This back door incorporation of the objective reality always occurs when someone tries to deny objective reality — they have to describe the lack of reality by self-referencing back to the very thing the existence of which is being denied.

When communicating in this blog, I am constrained to the use of the English language. This does not imply any particular metaphysical position, only that I must use the structures inherent in language to communicate.