If not THIS then THAT

There is philosophy N there is science ,now from where do this concept called “LOGIC” comes from?
If it is about REASON , it is easy to ask Y this or Y that. But, when it is about logic, it’s always,
“if not this , then that”.Now, how much reasonable is logic? How much meaningful is logic?
Discussion on “nothing exists or not” , then this question arised,
If Reason for “Nothing” emerges , “Nothing” emerges.
If reason for “Nothing” Vanishes , “Nothing” Vanishes.
So, by this , with REASON FOR NOTHING vanishing ,should obviously give rise to REASON FOR EVERYTHING TO emerge.
N by this EVERYTHING will emerge. It’s LOGIC.

But, how can U prove it with scientific base.
Should science field be OK with LOGIC , instead of REASON.

If this mushroom is not poisonous, then it is edible.

Pretty meaningful, I think.

All particle were said to be different from wave format , even Einstein thought so, and he never went on to experiment on to know about smallest particles. But, someone else did that experiment to know… What I’m trying to say is that, Even in Scientific world , R things taken for granted in science field too.Is it right to match up the things the way it is seen in by common way in daily life? that’s my point.

Ofcourse, there R so many example to justify where it is said -IF NOT ZERO THEN IT’S 1 - BUt it happens only where restricted constraints appears, that U have build according to UR knowledge, how can it be applied to science where U R still about figure out.

I think, though it is not an easy read, the OP is focused more on the non-empirical support for logic, at the every least around certain issues. I could be projecting one of my own pet peeves on the OP: I often find it irritating how confident people are when they think they can deduce things like Nothing cannot be or a whole myriad of other assertions you find here. It is as if language+logic were infallible. Ironically, many of the people who do this are die hard scientific empiricists, which seeks knowledge by an entirely different process - though arguable depends on deduction on the side.

I think you might be right, Moreno. Anyway, yes - it’s a difficult read. I have to bow out of this one, as I lack any confidence that any of us have any idea what each other is talking about.

Quantum, it would help at least a little bit if you wrote out full words, rather than using abbreviations like R and U. It would be a step in the right direction.

quantum - I have mentioned this before. Please do not use text message abbreviations for your posts. Next time, you get a board warning.

YES, YOU people ARE right. I myself couldn’t understand my words. ](*,)

When Astronomers of those days said ,earth was round ,and reason given by many of them was that - the certain stars which appeared for people watching it from certain place , does not appear by watching it from some other place AT THE SAME TIME.
So, it was logic to think that, earth is not flat, but round instead.
But, the same people never went on to think, “If earth is round , then how come ocean still flowing at ground level , instead of being poured away in to space”. Newton did thought in same way, thinking ,there might be some force holding all these things stuck to earth.
But, the same person never went on to think ,“If anything is capable of getting hold , then each and every object has power of holding”.But, Einstein said that. He even went on to say that If objects are heavy ,then the power of gravity increases.
All the above theories proposed are based on just COMMON SENSE WHICH IS VERY LOGIC AND MEANINGFULL TOO.If above examples are all right, then the person who proposed the theory of “earth is round”, must and should have proposed the rest of the theories too.Now this is logic.
Now one more question arises :- Does this logic happens to be result of COMMON SENSE.Do OPTIONS IN LOGIC depends on knowledge or information people hold during that age of history.
But, today’s world demands scientific explanation ,but not based on logic.
If person don’t appear at one point among two points that exist , then it’s logic to say he is at other point.What’s the proof he exist there?, how come you can declare and say he exist there even before clarifying it?
Best example of today’s way of QUESTIONING is Geometry - (of course ,it is gift from old day )

I RIGHT