Logic and Quantum Mechanics

[Travis Retriever]

Does Quantum Mechanics invalidate logic?

In a PM from FlowCell I got this bit:
"When you get down to logical arguments about square circles, you've brought the argument down the the level of logic, which is the basis of all language. The terrible truth about Logic is that it is a byproduct of our evolution; it is an adaptation based on the environment in which we evolved, and does not reflect the true nature of the universe. We did not evolve in a quantum world, so our language has a great deal of difficulty describing it, as if it didn't already have enough trouble with uncertainty in science. In our world A cannot be both A and not A (-A). But in the quantum world A can be both A and not A (-A).

When you demand that a concept conform to human language (logic), you are essentially using the verification principle, which, as I said, cannot meet its own standard of evidence. This is the 600 foot wide hole in both LTH's argument and Dophetan's argument. Because of this hole in logical positivism, we use falsification in science, not verification."

On one hand, this stuff about quantum mechanics he pointed out about logic has been bothering me for a while now.
On the other hand, he's still using logic to refute logic which is a self detonating statement and performative contradiction in itself.
Also, if logic is refuted by quantum mechanics, does that mean that logical fallacies don't mean anything?
That logic is a human construct is something I keep getting from a right wing friend of mine whenever I try to bring up evidence or lack there-of in either in regards to the state, OR in regards to individual religions themselves...
Does the fact that logic is a human construct mean he wins and I lose?

So to the readers, I have a question, what is your take on this?
Seriously, this has been bothering me for some time now...

[Ex_Nihil0]

Understand that it is impossible to communicate ideas without logic, because logic is the basis of language, but also understand that rationality is not the same as logic.  What I have done is not invalidate logic, but rather, I have separated logic from rationality and described logic for what it really is, the basis of language, not the basis of all reality.

Rationality is a broader term of consistency, even though Logic is also a form of consistency (albeit consistency in language).  We call the universe "rational" because we observe a consistency in it.  That is, rules outside of logic appear to be followed consistently in the universe.  Unfortunately, there is no particular reason why the universe should continue to behave in any rational or consistent manor forever, or even to the next moment.  The rationality of the universe is an apparent fact; you might even call it an intuitive truth, but intuition is not proof.  Science based on logical positivism is, indeed, based on a logical fallacy called the problem of induction.  This is why modern science switched to falsification.  You don't get to have certainty (because nothing is absolutely certain), but you also avoid the problem of induction as well. 

Falsification is a sort of scientific humility where you are ready to admit to being wrong about everything, provided that somebody else can falsify every theory you believe.  This is the only way that theories can ever hope to improve and become more accurate models of reality.  However, one must head caution because sometimes apologists will use falsification to invalidate a leading theory in order to regress to a previous one they like better.  What good is it to go back to an older theory that was already debunked just because the leading one got some holes punched into it as well?  No, the purpose of coming up with a new theory is to better fit with what was has been falsified and to make more accurate predictions.

Misterbusta did a very nice video describing this:

[yt]GT3N0GiLyTQ[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

First off, thank you very much for the well thought out response.
I'm very glad to have some feedback and clarification on this issue.

While I haven't watched the video yet, I do hope it's not like what I just linked into the fail quotes from the same person...
I haven't watched said video in fail quotes, nor am I.  But the starting premises in the video description, kinda say it all.
Hopefully what you linked here will be more like the video you showed during your "Understanding Liberty" video where he did very well (at least in the part in your video; I haven't watched the rest).

[Ex_Nihil0]

His video is pretty much in lockstep with my last two weeks of lectures in my intro to philosophy class, so I'd say its pretty spot on.  Some of what he touches on is similar to ideas presented by stefbot.