Atheists exist because they need to exist to claim anything at all even that they don’t exist.So if they claim that they don’t exist then they’re liars who exist.
They’re not misrepresentations of reality (illusions) at all.They’re lifeless binary processing biological machines which exist and claim things,
Is this related to why Aristotelian is better?
P.s. Thanks to my tutor for catalyzing the red part. Work in progress:
Schrödinger’s cat is mostly an intuition pump / critique about how we talk about quantum superposition + measurement, not a claim that cats are “both alive and dead” in any everyday biological sense.
Where it touches “Aristotelian vs non‑Aristotelian” is: classical (Aristotelian) logic assumes bivalence at the level of propositions (“P” is true or false) and identity/non‑contradiction. Quantum mechanics doesn’t really force you to abandon that for macroscopic claims like “the cat is alive” — what it challenges is the idea that microscopic systems always have definite values of all observables prior to measurement.
So the disagreement is often more about metaphysics/semantics (what physical states represent; what counts as a property) than about whether the law of non‑contradiction is “wrong”. You can keep classical logic and instead revise assumptions like:
- realism about hidden definite values,
- locality (depending on interpretation),
- or how/when wavefunctions collapse.
If your tutor is talking about syllogisms/set theory/modal logic: those are different layers. The “quantum weirdness” shows up when you model measurement outcomes/probabilities and ask what the formalism implies about pre‑measurement properties.
Curious: what exactly is the claim you want to defend — that bivalence fails, or that meaningful propositions should only be about measurement results?
Nah it’s a metaphor for coldhearted scientists without ethics who torture cats.
The rest of your post is interesting. Thank you. I’ll think about it.
