Thread: Is Logic Necessarily Infallible?

We, as humans, tend to take logic as an 'absolute truth'.

Our logic, at its most basic levels, appears to be based on the concept of 'objects', or 'things'. Syllogisms, for example -

Thing A is equal to Thing B
Thing B is equal to Thing C
Therefore: Thing A is equal to thing C

In order for the concept of 'equals' to work properly, we need to consider 'things'. Two apples, for example, can be considered 'equal things', even though the atoms which actually make them up are obviously not the same atoms.

The ability to group matter into functional Things is clearly very useful when it comes to interpreting the world around us - it allows us to recognize Thing A as an apple, which must be good to eat (like other apples) and Thing B as a rock, which is of little interest when it comes to food (like other rocks).

If you step outside of our frame of reference, though, there's much less reason to treat the world as Things than we think. The apple is constantly losing and gaining atoms, processing chemicals and growing, to eventually die - the apple itself is made up of atoms borrowed from previous Things, and when it dies, those atoms will form into new ones. The point is, the concept of a Thing, though useful for human purposes, is somewhat meaningless in the long run. A Thing is really just a momentary conglomeration of atoms with emergent properties which are of note to us homo Sapiens.

If our entire system of logic is based on this conveniently evolved method of perception, why should it be trusted beyond what we know it applies to? Do you think it's possible that mankind will reach a point where we are unable to use 'traditional' science to understand the world (or maybe even understand it at all), because we find that we have reached a level where our logic system no longer applies?