It still proves that your law of identity is more outdated and redundant than either relativity or quantum mechanics.
Sure you can use it just like we still use newtonian mechanics every day, but it is not possible to build a modern device with it. Hence it is a best fit poor mans tool.
If you learn something in thew lab, you still need to square it with logic. If you can't you must hold your convictions, which you are not doing. You claim certainty about randomness. It's silly. We can be certain about the nature of concept formation and reason. We cannot be sure about the limits of our perception and yet to be comnprehensive theories about things that only appear random. It matters not that I cannot build a rocket from scratch. The mathematics is extremely helpful technologically, I have said. This does not give us license to claim magic happens and is responsible for the metaphysical foundations of reality.
You claim certainty about randomness
No quantum mechanics does.
If you learn something in thew lab, you still need to square it with logic. If you can't you must hold your convictions
So when our best attempt at logic claimed the law of conservation of matter i.e. A=A hence identity theory, No matter how real the evidence of the atomic explosion was we should have ignored it instead of just redefining logic. No instead a new understanding of what logic was to mean was adopted and hence physics defines logic not the other way around.
I do not refer to pop culture physics, I refer to current leading university level physics. The foundation of the world you ignorantly exist in. Can you build a micro computer or comprehend the actual internal operations in a micro controller. How are you so sure of the world you live in, when you have little understanding beyond a macro view.
University level physics is pop culture physics. I have detailed understnading of the subatomic realm enough to know that we cannot make knowledgeable statements about that which we cannot perceive.
Well this is untrue, do you from your brief introduction to physics in medicine understand the physics world ...maybe not. But as an engineer you have to understand all of the workings at a subatomic level. Even a capacitor would not function if the repeatability of the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics were not as they are.
Do you know how modern electronics functions and if so to what level. I think you assume a lot more about your world you live in than you possibly understand.
I think from a medical point of view and also a philosophy point of view you have great comprehension, However you underestimate the complexity of modern engineering, by extension you therefore do not fully comprehend the evidence that contradicts your simple archaic views of reality.
no physics is the actual best knowledge of the real world, Reason is a concept and is constantly evolving, as what is reasonable to assume as fact one day is proven by physics not to be fact the next....physics is the foundation and never more so than today. philosophy was never more confused irrelevant or redundant.
No. Cognition is dependent on identity. Physics relies on the epistemological nature of knowledge formation. Philosophy will continue to be confusing to people who do not learn that there is one objective universe with universal causality.
the physics of reality existed well before we even had cognition it is not dependent on our existence unless you are going to go into solipsism. identity is bunk as I described before...do you not comprehend the irrelevance of identity theory on the day of July 16, 1945.
vegan - sometimes we believe something and then find ways to support that theory - other times we observe something and then realise that it is that way - most of the time we do both.....
i don't know if we are fully determined or have free will - but i believe we are fully determined - i see free will the same way i see god - lots of people talk about god, many believe that he exists or they exist - but we don't have any evidence - although many will report that they do indeed have evidence - because they saw god, or they talked to god or because god answered their prayers......
i see free will in the same light - just because we have a hope for free will - it doesn't mean that it's really there..... and all my understanding - over the last 5 years :) - reading the http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm website - shows me through observation that free will doesn't actually exist within me - i have wants and desires - but how they come to be - does seem to be fully caused.....
You should read through this first, I think, if you want to go there.
But, the short version is that there is, in fact, zero chance, that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my pancreas.
Relatvity theory is another example if two observers can make a measurement and both are correct yet both are different values. Who's reality is the one we take as actual objective reality?