<rim shot!>
Of course if there were as many standards as there are people it would nullify any criticism of the Protestant community as well. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
The foundation [of these non-material "abstractions"] is the definition of what A stands for, rather than writing it out; it's a shorthand. Thus instead of redundant long-hand (descirptivie) exposition we use a short-hand (gformula) method to write out the relationship to a conclusion that is demonstrably provable.
What is the mass and size of a definition or an abstraction? Besides, I'm not talking about the laws of physics, I'm talking about the laws of logic. The laws of physics are conceptual statements that describe actual physical and observable phenomena, as in your example of the atoms of a house being the size of football field relative to the size of a neutrino. Scientific truths are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary.
What non-material laws?
The very ones you rely on but cannot account for. I will explain below.
Conventional, of course. Made to order of our physical and chemical makeup. For instanc,e ti si perfectly "logical" that chicken wire fence is atrue barrier for a man, but not for a mouse. The atoms of your house are like a football field for a neutrino top fly through. What is 'logical' to us is determined by our size, shape, that is our material makeup. So our logic is not trasncedental but accidental to our size and shape, and "wiring".
Why don't we take a vote on the law of non-contradiction?
It should be self-evident to you that laws (of any kind) are not physical. But to demonstrate that the laws of logic exist, but are not material and are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions, tell me the last time something was observed in nature that was both itself and not itself at the same time? Never. You can only observe a phenomenon that exists. You can't observe one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. In principle, how could the property of that non-existent thing ever be observed? The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' brains, since people's brains are different. They can't be based on human thinking, either, since human thinking is often contradictory.
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They do not extend into space. They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe physical matter, energy, and motion. The principles of logic are derived using reasoning only, and their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world. The kind of scientific truths you have been mistaking for the laws of logic are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary.
Cordially,
Sure it can; it can be used to prove or disprove that which is within our capacity to know. We can't prove gravity logically, because we don't know what causes it; if we did, then it would "make sense." Logic can't "disprove" gravity because it seems illogical to our "conceptual reality." Gravity exists and logic can only explain it but not disprove it. The physical world always wins.
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They do not extend into space. They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe physical matter, energy, and motion
Knowledge of the real, material, physical, world is absolutely necessary for logic to exist. Without knowing the material world we live in we could not use logic because we would have no concept of anything. Everything we know is learned form the real-world experience, including the language we need to logically deduce anything.
Logic does not exist as some Platonic cosmic entity. It is a product of human experience and udnerstandg of the real world, or an imaginary world based on the experience of the real world.