>>12186873>Assume P exists.>P, in nature, is “P is false.”Then you can’t have a self-referential statement like that in such a logical system; it could be syntactically correct, but semantically it’s just nonsensical.
The LEM can be useful for refining logical statements and definitions, and is assumed to be true a priori by many people, but given that I personally believe in a strong relative law of identity, then it’s possible that the LEM is wrong.
People use certain Quantum Mechanical approaches to this, such as
>>12188867, but I think it’s nonsensical.
