Quantum Meta-Thinking Through The nth Dimension - An Error?

Dealing with Langan can be a bit tricky. It’s hard to know if he’s quantum meta-thinking through the nth dimension, or just nuts.For example, in section 4.6 he references the tautology X V ~X (X OR NOT X). He applies this tautology to perception saying it means that a thing is not seen in conjunction with its absence. Semantically this is kind of an error, or at least ill said. The tautology better suited for this would be ~(X ^ ~X): (NOT (X AND NOT X)). The OR used in logic is inclusive so what the proposition he used would really mean semantically would be see a thing, or you see its absence, or you see both the thing and its absence. So, maybe just nuts.

On the other hand, in the X V ~X tautology, both argument of the V operator are based on X. So in this tautology it’s never the case that both the arguments to the V are true, you either have V(t, f) or V(f, t) - never V(t, t). Foiled again. Quantum meta-thinking it is, I guess…

In other news, I think he rotated language by 90 degrees relative to itself. But we’ll do that later.