Thank you for such a thorough answer, that makes sense

Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time. Like, that’s the proof of that statement right there. As observed by the double slit experiment…

Unless you’re gonna substantiate your side a bit more, I’m not that into the endless negation. Explain to me why QM is fundamentally misunderstood in this article as it relates to the PNC.

Ok I’m trying to read up on it, and other articles explaining the double slit experiment kinda say the same thing. The photon simultaneously takes every possible trajectory. Again, I’m reading things in layman’s terms.

Can you please give me something more substantial than just negation here? Because I still don’t see how the author is wrong…

Is it the author who’s wrong about the theory, or is the theory wrong?

“a particle is going through both slits, none of the slits and only one slit all at once.”

Is this incorrect then?

Ok this is the section right after the description of the double slit experiment, maybe you can point me to where there’s a misunderstanding:

“Now if we look at the logic behind this sequence of events that have been empirically observed we can see a clear contradiction with classical logical laws. A product of quantum mechanics is an understanding of wave-particle duality in which all quantum entities behave in two contradictory manners, as particle and as wave, and as a result of how they are observed as behaving the same matter can be given two separate identities. Two logical impossibilities have occurred; quantum entity x behaves as wave x and particle x when the two are contradictory and this quantum entity x is always identical to both wave x and particle x at the same time. Furthermore, given that we can not state determinately whether at any given moment a proposition about the nature of a quantum entity behaving as a particle or a wave is true or false, the answer being completely subject to incalculable probability, the final law of the excluded middle is also not being followed here. Thus, scientifically observed, empirical and existent phenomena in the form of quantum mechanics displays to us that three classical laws of logic are non-universal.”

Omg you changed your comment! Ahah

Ok isn’t Quantum Mechanics the proof of this? My initial assumption was that you wanted to scrap QM because of ideological belief a.i. “I believe in the opposite of what this article is saying, therefore I will trash the theories that support it.”

Now, since I’m not a smart science person, I just trusted the conclusions about QM in the article. Does it in fact not prove the point the author is making?

If you mean ‘countenance’ (weird word use) as in how you’re meant to accept, admit, or support that a violation exists, then I don’t know what to tell ya. It’s not within the scope of this article to tell you how to accept it, just that the violation exists.

An ironically sloppy comment.

Also, “If QM genuinely entails violation of principle of noncontradiction, QM belongs in the trash heap.” Maybe it’s the other way around regarding what belongs in the trash heap as a theory.