Why not? You assert this definitively, but there is nothing other than your assertion to support it. And again, of what bearing is this on the supposed, global applicability within the universe of the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth?"
Only one location and only one momentum can be correct (true).
But only upon measurement. Until measurement, the particle exists in a state of uncertainty (possessing two mutually exclusive properties at the same time).
OK - there either are, or there are not - but they cannot be and not be - either there are NO rules, or there are a set of rules.
I'm not sure how, but you apparently missed my point. Your statement certainly appears to reiterate your original fallacy -- either there are rules for every situation, or there are no rules for any situation.
This either/or, black/white precept of yours is defied on a regular basis in our everyday lives. Sure, we live with an accepted set of generalized moral, behavioral, legal, and "engineering and navigation of life" rules (applicable to our subset of civilization and consistent with the current state of our knowledge of the physical world).
But we also live with the knowledge that there are unanticipated situations for which the general rules are inapplicable or only partly applicable (hence our need to consider the specifics of a situation before committing to a resolution). Simply put, we recognize (with little need for contemplation) that are in fact multiple "truths".
some things are just wrong - there are some black-and-white sitiations - not everything is shades of grey.
Correct. Not everything is "shades of grey." But a great deal is. Hence, the "only one truth" statement is a fallacy.
Well Sir - in the words of Alex Karras: "Mongo just pawn in game of life."
While humorous, I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact of the matter is, we accept and deal with inescapable contradictory states and uncertainties all of the time -- indeed, they are an inevitability in our social and economic construct. We give them little thought because they have become inextricably woven into the patterns of our behavior. But if you parse them out, you soon realize that the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth" have rather limited applicability.
My point is that I am (obviously) not schooled in the art of logic and debate (as you so ably are), and am in way over my head - the "Blazing Saddles" reference was an attempt to extricate myself from this discussion with a little bit of pride.
I'm not even college educated - my job is to figure out ways to perform a wide variety of modifications to combat aircraft in the field - I'm pretty-much self-taught, or as Alex Karras would say..........