> If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. That may be the case. If our brain is only capable of

> If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. That may be the case. If our brain is only capable of forming self-consistent schemas (consider how it reacts when encountering new facts that contradict existing schemas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), then the world's apparent consistency may only be a consequence of our contemplating it through the human brain. (To be clear though, it's consistency within single schemas—not between, where contradictions abound.) > If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time Can someone be a hero and not be a hero at the same time? I think there are some subtleties to this issue arising from the nature of language. Certainly at our scale (i.e. not quantum scales—although even there I don't really think 'real' inconsistency is happening, but it's less clear cut) a certain kind of consistency has very strong empirical support (it's probably our best supported hypothesis!), so it would be adaptive for us to build models of the world that would reflect that property—but this doesn't mean we've hit on something deep about the nature of reality.