I have been looking into this for a little while. Having read through a bit of of material I have reached what I feel is an answer though I am still in the process of fully developing it.
I thought that i would put it out anyway to help other Brothers and Sisters who are in a similar position and are seeking an answer. At the very least i hope it will help steer people in the right direction.
Some vital information was overlooked which could have helped reach a conclusion a long time ago - Emptiness.
White Lotus wrote:
we know that in buddhism emptiness is form.
From my current understanding, if we take any object, there are several attributes associated with it. Attributes such as Colour, Length, Width, Volume, Texture etc... Rudimentarily, this is what makes them "Real" to us - We can perceive them through our gross senses as they have an objective existence.
However, if we were to take all objects down to their microscopic level, we would have to agree that are all made up of the same thing - atoms.
If we look into the composition of the atom, we see that it is made up a nucleus and an electronic charge. What must be noted that over 99.9% of it is infact empty space.
"An atom isn't just tiny, it's over 99.9% empty space...The rest of the atom is entirely empty apart from a few ghostly objects called electrons that skim about at a great distance from the nucleus...That means even the most solid-looking objects we see are predominantly nothingness.."
This was discovered by the famous scientist Ernest Rutherford(1871-1937) who performed experiments where alpha particle beams where shot at a piece of gold foil.
"...the evidence suggested that an atom is mostly empty space and that its positive charge is concentrated in a dense mass at its core, forming a nucleus."
And an atom mainly being empty is widely accepted in the scientific world as a fundamental building block:
"He saw that the radius of the reflecting center of the gold Atom was about 10^5 times smaller then the radius of the atom itself... Thus
Rutherford discovered that most of the volume of the atom is empty space."
Source: M.Sachs(2007), Concepts of modern physics: the Haifa lectures (Imperial College Press), p43
"Atoms Are Overwhelmingly Composed of Empty Space Rutherford allows us to make this statement."
Source: B.L.Silver(1998),The ascent of science, (OUP USA)p141-142
And what is contained in this empty space? According to current understanding it is electromagnetic forces that are produced through the interaction between the nucleus and electronic charge.
"The electrons and the protons/neutrons are constantly interacting, either electromagnetically or through the weak force. In quantum field theory we would say that these particles are constantly exchanging photons (in the case of electromagnetism) or heavy gauge bosons (in the case of the weak force). Thus you might say that the otherwise 'empty' space between the electrons and nucleus is 'filled' with these quanta carrying forces."
As well as acknowledged as a void:
"By the end of 1910, Rutherford began tying these several factors into a new atomic model and theory of scattering. The alpha projectile, he said, changed course in a single encounter with a target atom. But for this to occur, the forces of electrical repulsion (or attraction—it made no difference for the mathematics) had to be concentrated in a region of 10-13 centimeters, whereas the atom was known to measure 10-8 centimeters. This meant that the atom consisted largely of empty space, with a very tiny and very dense charged nucleus at the center and opposite charges somehow placed in the
Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ernes ... rford.aspx
At this level it would not be possible to attain any perception of the object, and according to the imminent Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
"Empty space... can be discerned by no sense experience whatever."
Source: I. Kant, J.W. Ellington (1985), The philosophy of material nature, (Hackett Publishing), pxx
Therefore, whilst it can be said that all objects are Real, because we can perceive their attributes through the gross senses, they are also NotReal at the same time, as they they are all ultimately founded on emptiness, the platform where they are devoid of all attributes and no longer discernible by the senses. Please note however, that the contexts are different.
Looking back at the LNC, we can see that it was never violated in the first place because even though two opposing terms are placed next to each other in the same sentence, they are speaking with respect to different conditions.
the LNC holds as long as X and -X are in the same context.
In the Buddha Dharma, if one examines carefully, X and -X are never in the same context even though they appear in the same sentence or verse.
The purpose of juxtaposing X and -X is then to get the listener to examine his context. In other words, the Buddha was pointing out that the
assumptions, the concepts etc., that the questioner had in mind were incorrect and he had to reexamine them.
if we look over the original example that was used to illustrate the LNC:
Lotus Lion wrote:
A ball may be Red or it may not be Red within the same context, however it cannot be Red and NotRed in same context.
A Ball can be Red AND NotRed at the same time if the frame of reference is different.
It is Red when we perceive it via our gross senses and NotRed when looked at from its foundation of Emptiness.
Please see the below passage and keep in mind that it is speaking from different places to uncover the 'true' underlying and complete reality, literally thousands of years before science has discovered it.
"Everything is real; and is not real;
Both real and unreal;
Neither unreal nor real.
This is the Lord Buddha’s teaching."
Source: MMK 18.5-11, tr. from Ocean of Reasoning
Thank you very much for helping me to get to this point,