Severity of Logic - Escape from Confusion

My logic is severe, the same way mathematics is severe. If you nail information coherently, there is not much wiggle room for serious rational doubt. For instance, natural a-priori axioms do not require, nor do they yield to either proof or disproof. Natural a-priori axioms are the bridges between metaphysical and scientific. Bridges between metaphysical and scientific are necessary. It is inconceivable that we could build and sustain a civilization without those bridges.

?

Metaphysics is not subject to proof or disproof, rather metaphysics is more dependent on belief and sentient feeling certainty. The boundary between metaphysics and science according to Karl Popper (and I agree) is that it is possible to disprove information, but natural a-priori axioms are independent of proof and disproof.

?

Natural a-priori axioms are tautologically true, say x = x exactly, only, and always, in every possible universe. For instance, natural a-priori axiom 1) everything physical exists with a beginning. 2) Everything physical must be caused to begin. 3) Nothing physical can cause itself to begin. With natural a-priori axioms, you either grok or you don’t. There is not a lot of wiggle room between grok and do not grok. There is not much wiggle room between I get it, or I don’t get it, true or false, on or off, exist and does not exist, here or not here, yes or no, etc. In other posts I discuss the necessity that there is a near-existence domain where logical contradictions are hosted, but in actual existence domain, they are strictly forbidden.

?

The past is tautologically true. The past was exactly a certain way and many different interpretations of the past have nothing to do with the past; they exist now, and some of those interpretations are true, others are false. The future has not happened (yet), however it is certain that the future will not violate laws of physics or natural a-priori axioms. Laws of physics are physical certainty, for instance uncertainty is certain. Natural a-priori axioms are metaphysically and tautologically certain in the past, now, and future. If not, then they were never actual laws of physics or natural a-priori axioms. There are no do-overs of the past, regardless of how many interpretations and misinterpretations there might be now. There is no certainty about the future, except that there will be no violation of real laws of physics or natural a-priori axioms.

?

If any law of physics is disproven that means it was never an actual law of physics. That certainly does not rule out the fact that a set of actual laws of physics do govern our physical universe. If any natural a-priori axiom is logically, rationally, and coherently defeated, it was never a natural a-priori axiom to begin with, but that certainly does not defeat the set of true natural a-priori axioms.

?

Truth, as an actual epistemological state condition, does not change. Truth is independent of past, now and future. Truth is independent of time. Truth is with reference to some set of circumstances and those circumstances exist at some location and some time, but truth is an abstraction in the sense it is an epistemological interpretation of ontological existence, not what ontological existence actually is. The menu is never the meal. Our information, say interpretation of meaning, description of what exists, knowledge about what exists, definitions of what exists, mathematical calculations about what exists, naming what exists, can be either true or false, but truth is exactly, only and always itself (tautology). If circumstances in location and time change, the description of those circumstances will necessarily be different than the description of the previous circumstances, and the description of the new circumstances will be either true or false, the same way that the description of the previous circumstances was either true or false.

?

If I state that your truth and my truth are different, I am misapplying the term truth. I am using the word truth in a false sense. What I can say rationally, logically, and coherently is that my interpretation of some set of circumstances in some location at some time, is different than yours. I cannot rationally, logically, and coherently claim there are alternative facts. Nor can you.