Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.

see my response above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.

You don't have a coherent definition of "sameness".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.

Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.

As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.

Yeah, sure. Why have you chosen that particular logic?

There are powerful systems of logic that are known to be inconsistent. They are useful despite inconsistency.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.

Here is a formal and inconsistent system of logic.

https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2371045

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.

You don't have a coherent definition of "sameness".

According to the defined Framework of Formal logic, why not.

The limitation of formal logic according to Kant is due to its features of abstraction.
As such formal logic deal with universals and not particulars.
In this case objects & things are stripped off their particular details and merely considered as object-in-general.
For example, apple refer to refer to an apple-in-general where all apples referred as having the same qualities and not a a particular apple which is still growing or rotting.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.

Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.

As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.

Yeah, sure. Why have you chosen that particular logic?

There are powerful systems of logic that are known to be inconsistent. They are useful despite inconsistency.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.

Here is a formal and inconsistent system of logic.

https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2371045

??

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am According to the defined Framework of Formal logic, why not.

THE defined Framework of Formal logic.

Which one is that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am The limitation of formal logic according to Kant is due to its features of abstraction.
As such formal logic deal with universals and not particulars.
In this case objects & things are stripped off their particular details and merely considered as object-in-general.
For example, apple refer to refer to an apple-in-general where all apples referred as having the same qualities and not a a particular apple which is still growing or rotting.

The moment you call two different things by the same name you are DOING abstraction.

This apple and that apple are both apples. You are asserting that they are "the same". Even though they are TWO different objects with TWO distinct identities. "Sameness" is a context-based judgment.

Two apples may be the same, or they may be different.

So if you can't even define "sameness" how can you then go onto define "non-contradiction" using a the notion of "sameness" (which you haven't defined)?!?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am According to the defined Framework of Formal logic, why not.

THE defined Framework of Formal logic.

Which one is that?

The logic of Aristotle for example.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am The limitation of formal logic according to Kant is due to its features of abstraction.
As such formal logic deal with universals and not particulars.
In this case objects & things are stripped off their particular details and merely considered as object-in-general.
For example, apple refer to refer to an apple-in-general where all apples referred as having the same qualities and not a a particular apple which is still growing or rotting.

The moment you call two different things by the same name you are DOING abstraction.

This apple and that apple are both apples. You are asserting that they are "the same". Even though they are TWO different objects with TWO distinct identities. "Sameness" is a context-based judgment.

Two apples may be the same, or they may be different.

So if you can't even define "sameness" how can you then go onto define "non-contradiction" using a the notion of "sameness" (which you haven't defined)?!?

I stated formal logic is confined to abstractions.
So there is no question of the fact that "Two apples may be the same, or they may be different."

When we qualify we are doing formal logic, [Aristotle] then it is assumed two apples are always the same, unless qualified for relevant reason.
Thus one apple + one apple in this case is two apples without regard that one is fresh, the other is rotten.

In the case of 'sameness' it is about the same sense.
One can say a diamond gem is both soft and hard at the same time.
But that does not contradict the LNC because
that is meant to be in different sense, i.e.
1. diamond as solid rock.
2. diamond from the electron perspective facing an electron piercer.

It is the same with 'water is both at the same time physically soft and hard' depending on the different sense [context].
So water cannot be both hard and soft in the same context a ordinary drinkable water, that would be a contradiction.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am The logic of Aristotle for example.

Nobody uses that anymore.

What we call Classical logic in 2021 has roots in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am I stated formal logic is confined to abstractions.

Informal logic is also confined to abstractions.
Informal language, reasoning and communication is strictly confined to abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am So there is no question of the fact that "Two apples may be the same, or they may be different."

Of course there is!

The notions of "sameness" and "difference" (formal OR informal) are abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am When we qualify we are doing formal logic, [Aristotle] then it is assumed two apples are always the same, unless qualified for relevant reason.

Key word "assumed". They aren't. Two apples are only "the same" because you have ignored all of their differences. Size, color, taste etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am Thus one apple + one apple in this case is two apples without regard that one is fresh, the other is rotten.

Q.E.D you have disregarded some differences to assert sameness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am In the case of 'sameness' it is about the same sense.
One can say a diamond gem is both soft and hard at the same time.
But that does not contradict the LNC because
that is meant to be in different sense, i.e.
1. diamond as solid rock.
2. diamond from the electron perspective facing an electron piercer.

Uhuh. So when does "same" mean "same" and when is "same" different to "same"?

When is "different" the same "different", and when is different a different different?

ALL things are the same, except for their difference.
ALL things are difference, except for their sameness.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am The logic of Aristotle for example.

Nobody uses that anymore.

What we call Classical logic in 2021 has roots in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am I stated formal logic is confined to abstractions.

Informal logic is also confined to abstractions.
Informal language, reasoning and communication is strictly confined to abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am So there is no question of the fact that "Two apples may be the same, or they may be different."

Of course there is!

The notions of "sameness" and "difference" (formal OR informal) are abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am When we qualify we are doing formal logic, [Aristotle] then it is assumed two apples are always the same, unless qualified for relevant reason.

Key word "assumed". They aren't. Two apples are only "the same" because you have ignored all of their differences. Size, color, taste etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am Thus one apple + one apple in this case is two apples without regard that one is fresh, the other is rotten.

Q.E.D you have disregarded some differences to assert sameness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:33 am In the case of 'sameness' it is about the same sense.
One can say a diamond gem is both soft and hard at the same time.
But that does not contradict the LNC because
that is meant to be in different sense, i.e.
1. diamond as solid rock.
2. diamond from the electron perspective facing an electron piercer.

Uhuh. So when does "same" mean "same" and when is "same" different to "same"?

When is "different" the same "different", and when is different a different different?

ALL things are the same, except for their difference.
ALL things are difference, except for their sameness.

You missed the critical point again.

It is an imperative feature of formal, traditional/classical logic that all its object be abstractions without the particular details.

If you do not rely on abstractions, formal logic will not work.

When you take one rotten apple and one good apple, the finer reality is that there are no two apples in hand.
The reality is there is one rotten apple and another good apple.
To insist there are merely two apples without the details is in a way a degree of falsehood.
If there are >100 apples to be realistic one will have to account for each apples and its details in terms of color, shape, rottenness, good, ripe, unripe, etc. This will be too cumbersome for the sake of being more realistic.

One can only conclude there are two apples [compromised reality] when one rely on formal logic i.e. deal only with abstractions without the detailed contents.
In a way, in formal logic we are dealing with lesser truths and reality but while we forsake the degree of reality we gain effectiveness.

This is why the framework relied up upon must be clearly defined as to contexts, sameness, differences, abstractions, etc.
You on the other hand are messing the whole thing up with all sorts of conflations.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am You missed the critical point again.

It is an imperative feature of formal, traditional/classical logic that all its object be abstractions without the particular details.

If you do not rely on abstractions, formal logic will not work.

Moron. If you don't rely on abstraction thinking doesn't work.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am When you take one rotten apple and one good apple, the finer reality is that there are no two apples in hand.
The reality is there is one rotten apple and another good apple.

Is that a red rotten apple; or a green rotten apple you are talking about?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am To insist there are merely two apples without the details is in a way a degree of falsehood.

So then why are you falsely insisting on "rotten apple" and "good apple" ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am If there are >100 apples to be realistic one will have to account for each apples and its details in terms of color, shape, rottenness, good, ripe, unripe, etc. This will be too cumbersome for the sake of being more realistic.

So being realistic is too cumbersome? Imagine that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am One can only conclude there are two apples [compromised reality] when one rely on formal logic i.e. deal only with abstractions without the detailed contents.
In a way, in formal logic we are dealing with lesser truths and reality but while we forsake the degree of reality we gain effectiveness.

This is why the framework relied up upon must be clearly defined as to contexts, sameness, differences, abstractions, etc.
You on the other hand are messing the whole thing up with all sorts of conflations.

I am not sure how one quantifies/measures the effectiveness of descriptive abstractions.

Effective for what?

You keep projecting your misunderstanding on me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am You missed the critical point again.

It is an imperative feature of formal, traditional/classical logic that all its object be abstractions without the particular details.

If you do not rely on abstractions, formal logic will not work.

Moron. If you don't rely on abstraction thinking doesn't work.

Subconsciously you know you are the Moron, that is why in this case when you are losing the point, you have to transpose that you are the moron to others. As I had said before there is something wrong in your brain.

Why do you need to change the topic?
We are talking about logic, i.e. more systematic form of thinking, not mere thinking.
Btw, anyone can think [having thoughts] of the impossible 'perfection' god, square-circle, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am When you take one rotten apple and one good apple, the finer reality is that there are no two apples in hand.
The reality is there is one rotten apple and another good apple.

Is that a red rotten apple; or a green rotten apple you are talking about?

off topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am To insist there are merely two apples without the details is in a way a degree of falsehood.

So then why are you falsely insisting on "rotten apple" and "good apple" ?

To state specifically there are 1 rotten apple and 1 good apple is more realistic than merely saying there are two universal apples.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am If there are >100 apples to be realistic one will have to account for each apples and its details in terms of color, shape, rottenness, good, ripe, unripe, etc. This will be too cumbersome for the sake of being more realistic.

So being realistic is too cumbersome? Imagine that.

Still cannot get the point?
Can't you see the difference between trying to be realistic with 100 apples by describing the specific details of each apple of the 100 apples than merely stating there are 100 universal apples.
In this case to be more realistic is cumbersome, but if we have to do it, then we have to do it but there is a limit to the degree of being realistic weighed against its cost vs benefits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:06 am One can only conclude there are two apples [compromised reality] when one rely on formal logic i.e. deal only with abstractions without the detailed contents.
In a way, in formal logic we are dealing with lesser truths and reality but while we forsake the degree of reality we gain effectiveness.

This is why the framework relied up upon must be clearly defined as to contexts, sameness, differences, abstractions, etc.
You on the other hand are messing the whole thing up with all sorts of conflations.

I am not sure how one quantifies/measures the effectiveness of descriptive abstractions.

Effective for what?

You keep projecting your misunderstanding on me.

As I had stated, effective [optimality] is relative to the cost versus benefits factor.
How much abstraction one need to do will depend on the cost versus benefits factor.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am Why do you need to change the topic?
We are talking about logic, i.e. more systematic form of thinking, not mere thinking.
Btw, anyone can think [having thoughts] of the impossible 'perfection' god, square-circle, etc.

I am not changing the topic, idiot. I am pointing out that your point generalises from logic to all forms of thinking just fine.

So there's no need to discuss logic (in particular) when we can talk about thinking (in general).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am off topic.

No it isn't. We are talking in the abstract. Neither of us has any particular apple in mind. Even though you are abstractly talking about particular apples.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am To state specifically there are 1 rotten apple and 1 good apple is more realistic than merely saying there are two universal apples.

Your specificity is still in the abstract. Because your words aren't refering to any particular apples.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am Still cannot get the point?

Still cannot make it?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am Can't you see the difference between trying to be realistic with 100 apples by describing the specific details of each apple of the 100 apples than merely stating there are 100 universal apples. In this case to be more realistic is cumbersome, but if we have to do it, then we have to do it but there is a limit to the degree of being realistic weighed against its cost vs benefits.

I can see that both possibilities exist. And I can see that you can make either choice. Depending on your pragmatic utility and your needs. And some times the benefits justify the cost.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am As I had stated, effective [optimality] is relative to the cost versus benefits factor.
How much abstraction one need to do will depend on the cost versus benefits factor.

Cost/benefit analysis produces different results for different goals.

All you have done is instead of abstractly talking about "particular" apples; you are not abstractly talking about "partcular" cost-benefit analysis.

There are scenarios in which cost-benefit analysis fails. Such as scenarios in which one of the possible costs is irreversible damage to something of infinite value.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am Why do you need to change the topic?
We are talking about logic, i.e. more systematic form of thinking, not mere thinking.
Btw, anyone can think [having thoughts] of the impossible 'perfection' god, square-circle, etc.

I am not changing the topic, idiot. I am pointing out that your point generalises from logic to all forms of thinking just fine.

So there's no need to discuss logic (in particular) when we can talk about thinking (in general).

You are the idiot, as always transposing what your really are into others.

You stated, "If you don't rely on abstraction thinking doesn't work."
I am saying, thinking do not in all cases rely on abstraction. I gave example.

It is critical we must differentiate logic from thinking in general, plus differentiate the different types of logic with their respective rules.
Logic is like any games, e.g. chess, tennis, where without rule it will not work as what it should be.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am off topic.

No it isn't. We are talking in the abstract. Neither of us has any particular apple in mind. Even though you are abstractly talking about particular apples.

In theory there is a difference between what is abstracted and what is particular in reality.
Nope I am not conflating particular apples with abstract apples, that would be a contradiction.
We can talk about a particular apple in a certain perspective but there is no ultimate particular apple-in-itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am To state specifically there are 1 rotten apple and 1 good apple is more realistic than merely saying there are two universal apples.

Your specificity is still in the abstract. Because your words aren't refering to any particular apples.

Wonder why you are so blurr.
Take the drop-of-water in general that is in abstract.
But one drop of water with 100 molecules of H20 and another with 1000 molecules of H20 refer to the particular drop of water not its abstraction.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am Can't you see the difference between trying to be realistic with 100 apples by describing the specific details of each apple of the 100 apples than merely stating there are 100 universal apples. In this case to be more realistic is cumbersome, but if we have to do it, then we have to do it but there is a limit to the degree of being realistic weighed against its cost vs benefits.

I can see that both possibilities exist. And I can see that you can make either choice. Depending on your pragmatic utility and your needs. And some times the benefits justify the cost.

Now you are getting it.
I did not state both are impossible.
I implied both are possible but one is more cumbersome to the other and we choose whichever where the benefits justify the costs as mentioned below.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:50 am As I had stated, effective [optimality] is relative to the cost versus benefits factor.
How much abstraction one need to do will depend on the cost versus benefits factor.

Cost/benefit analysis produces different results for different goals.

All you have done is instead of abstractly talking about "particular" apples; you are not abstractly talking about "particular" cost-benefit analysis.

There are scenarios in which cost-benefit analysis fails. Such as scenarios in which one of the possible costs is irreversible damage to something of infinite value.

You are going off point again, my focus in not not cost-benefit analysis.

My original point is,
1. The advantage of logic [formal, traditional, etc.] is due to its limitations, i.e. that it has to rely on abstraction and not with details of particulars.
2. In order for such logic to be effective and make sense, it has to have rules, i.e. one of them is the LNC.
3. As such one cannot simply generalize to claim the LNC is false re OP, because it is a necessary rule established for logic [formal, traditional, etc.] to work.
4. As with abstraction, there are degrees and to what degree with depend on the cost-benefit factor when applied in practice.

As usual, in trying to be a smart-alec you are straying all over ending with being a smart-fool.

If you want to counter me, go through point 1 to 4 systematically & orderly and show me where I am wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:44 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:41 pm A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.

I agree, but Liebnitz wouldnt. Neither would most Mathematicians.

If you turn a blind eye to location within the coordinate system they share all other properties.

But then 1 = 1 is false. And Mathematics falters.

Equational reasoning is grounded upon the falsehood that A = A.

Identity is thus grounded in its "singularness" of expression. This "singularness" of phenomenon expands across all of phenomenon thus necessitating two distinct phenomenon as equivocating through this common nature. One exists across many as one self references through the many. Self referentiality is a singularity manifested through multiplicity....this is superpositioning where one thing exists in multiple states.

Two distinct locations equate through the common phenomenon which unite them much in the same manner 2+2 is different to 3+1 but both equate through the common median of 4.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:33 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm Physically identical is not the same identical meaning.

"Physialy identical" is an incoherent notion. Physicists only talk about indistinguishability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .

What is it that you think the symbol 1 denotes; refers to; or represents?

Representation is equivocation thus two seemingly different phenomenon, ie the "abstract image" and "x phenomenon", are connected....this connection necessitates a degree of sameness. However sameness results in multiple positions as two or more phenomenon exist; ie the mental picture of x being an abstraction and the x phenomenon being empirical. So the phenomenon which equivocate in fact are different, but these differences in positioning connect therefore necessitating sameness. 1=1 necessitates two different positions connecting.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus

The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".

propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.

You referenced but did not read fully, i.e.

"Unfortunately, so little remains of Heraclitus' aphorisms that not much about his philosophy can be said with certainty."

Due to the above limitations your reference cannot be credible.

What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.

I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.

Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.

As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.

Nevertheless the OP is countering the LNC within its framework but unsuccessfully due to his ignorance of the criteria of 'same sense', i.e. trying to be a smart-alec but exposed as a smart-fool.

So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.

1. The LNC is absolute within its defined context of usage thus necessitating absolutes therefore not all is relative.

2. An instance is a duration of time in which one phenomenon changes into another. Given it is a duration of time both P and -P exist simultaneously within said length of time given the instant of change as a length is both phenomenon occurring within the same time period. X changing into Y within a second observes both X and Y occur within a second. This second can be replace with millisecond, etc. as the second is the instant of change. All instants are durations at the meta scale.

3. The potentiality of A to change to B or C necessitates both B and C existing simultaneously within the context of "potentiality" at the same time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus

The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".

propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.

You referenced but did not read fully, i.e.

"Unfortunately, so little remains of Heraclitus' aphorisms that not much about his philosophy can be said with certainty."

Due to the above limitations your reference cannot be credible.

What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.

I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.

Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.

As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.

Nevertheless the OP is countering the LNC within its framework but unsuccessfully due to his ignorance of the criteria of 'same sense', i.e. trying to be a smart-alec but exposed as a smart-fool.

So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.

1. The LNC is absolute within its defined context of usage thus necessitating absolutes therefore not all is relative.

2. An instance is a duration of time in which one phenomenon changes into another. Given it is a duration of time both P and -P exist simultaneously within said length of time given the instant of change as a length is both phenomenon occurring within the same time period. X changing into Y within a second observes both X and Y occur within a second. This second can be replace with millisecond, etc. as the second is the instant of change. All instants are durations at the meta scale.

3. The potentiality of A to change to B or C necessitates both B and C existing simultaneously within the context of "potentiality" at the same time.

I have responded to 1 & 3 in the other threads.

2. You are trying to rhetorical and deceptive.
In the case of "same time" re the LNC mean the same instance to the dot not within a duration of time or length of time, which can be nano-seconds, second, minutes or hours, etc.

In a duration or length of time, there is a continuous flow from t1 to t2, t3 and so on with each 't' in measured in the smallest nano-seconds or assumed to the in absolute same time.

When the potentiality of a croc egg at t1 is determined in terms of its specific sex at t2, then we are not taking about the 'same time' for the purpose of the LNC.
The practical use of the LNC in this case will enable eggs of the different sex to be separated from one another.

As I had stated, don't try to be a smart-alec with the application of the LNC within traditional, formal, conventional logic.