Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

Well yes. Eg the premise: "truth is consensus" is itself not consensual, and therefore by it's own measure it is not true...

I didn't say 'truth doesn't exist'. I said it equates to 'species specific agreement'.

BTW. You might like this regarding your views on 'consensus'.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

No, a concentrated fart gas your boyfriend voluntarily accepted to donate for the project.

On the contrary.

Quantum mechanics is in the right topic.

When Schrödinger's Cat gives you only one choice for the cat to die, such breaks the philosophical approach of uncertainty, dice game, night prayers, etc.

The analogy or thought experiment itself stinks.

This is what evolutionists tried to make a rule in the 80s and 90s, that the word "evolution" simply means "change".

The several variations resulted in any experiment is the event that show us that no theory has validity in science.

A theory of science is just an attempt to explain phenomena of a certain class as a consequence of a former phenomena of the same class.

Just an "attempt to explain" such a process.

It will be corroborated in many cases and in other several cases will fail miserably because it lacks of predicting other out comes from the same experiment.

The contradictory found in Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment does fit greatly with the Principle of Explosion.

******
That deserves a bonus star !

The link is quite topical here: the postmodernist vision of truth has given weapons to those who want to propagate lies. It's important IMO to not fall for that. Lies exist, in my view, while I am unsure how your view accomodate the concept of "lies".

Sure. A lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead. What's wrong with that ?

(For clarity purposes, I meant 'what's wrong with that definition'. )

And how does "misleading" differ from other forms of "social dancing" and "communicating"?

Its all about objectives don't you think ? I don't feel moved to produce a thesis on it, but given the size of say, the average 'sales training manual', a thesis is probably what it needs.

So you don't know...

You seem to want to make a point which I can't be bothered answering. What is there to 'know' ? All three could be happening simultaneously if you like...its one of the facets of language due to its ambiguities and subtleties. And on forums, for example, there are clearly misfits who simply have nobody to talk to. They may think they are 'communicating', but they are merely 'dancing on their own'.
If this Q is part of your anti postmodernism drive, you are probably targeting the wrong person. I think those guys say some very unique and interesting stuff and they correctly draw our attention to 'bewitchment by language', but I don't particularly count myself as one of them.

You obviously CAN be bothered answering, since you answer a wall of text.

Truth is not a concept we can't dispose of.

sorry, i meant we can't dispose of the concept of truth

Nobody said it could be 'disposed of'', merely that it is contextual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Do you think climate change is "contextual"?

'climate change' per se has happened in the past. The questions are (a)'do humans contribute to it ?', and is so, (b')can humans do anything about it ?'.
I think the answer to (a) is that humans do contribute to it to a significant degree. But regarding (b) I am skeptical about the ability of humanity to significantly reverse it. I think 'humanity', as a species, tends to operate on short term vested interests and political power structures. Long termism is fine for 'rich' Westerners with life choices, but even they lack unity, nor do they constitute a significant force.
So in the long run, I suspect many will suffer or perish until eco systems re establish balance with the population.

So, in what contexts is this true, and in what contexts is it false?

This is the second time you've referenced this subject off topic while responding to Cameronleon. If you would like to get it out of your system once and for all, then I would recommend rebutting the OP in the thread linked to below.

https://able2know.org/topic/414649-1#post-6507641

Cameronleon is masquerading as 'knowledgeable' on a scientific thread after claiming to have 'scientifically proven the non-existence of gas chambers'. I reserve the right to ridicule him wherever and whenever I see fit.