Consider the following proposition P.

"socrates will die".
For this proposition, the rule of exclusion,

"Socrates either dies or does not die". 
It is a rule that the proposition P ∨ ¬P holds.

These sentences are just from wikipedia interpretation. By the way what makes these sentences as necessity means that one given proposition by itself must have logical meaning as equal to suppositive probability in regard of one indicated condition to which it could be affirmed or nagated. But actually the kind of propositional provision to be indicated with sentences could have meant from the beginning our subjective consciouness or concern is targetted and focused on sharable factual truth. 

On the other hand, these serially agreeable mutual mind process means with completely different dimensioned not agreeable situation in terms of mutual mind's communication.
That apathtic reality could be shown with ¬(P ∨ ¬P).

What makes me claim so could be caused from that we anytime are at looking for the sharable proposition and it means from the beginning, we are not always at the premise to be able to get debatable occasion, then if that very empty situation could be added to Logical three principles, we could get the newly phased field with the truly our mind's accompanying meaning's spatially signified logical order or subconsciously prepared idea or thinking circuit structural formulation. At the matter of fact, at cognitive science as brain domain reserching had already so precise theory as evidenced with redieness potential discovered and evidenced by Benjamin Libet(US). 

Then if his superior theory and law could be trustworthy factual truth to us, we could get another process to understand ¬(P ∨ ¬P).

Originally we could have a conscious concern to somewhat, and just it could be formulated with propositional setting as parameter setting consciousness.
It must be P.  Afterword, we inductively get the consciousness not P, that must be ¬P, in other words, we could get  ¬P only after we've readied for the P as propostional setting at premise of debating or speaking together.

In other words, that could mean either CP violation、CP-symmetry、charge conjugation parity symmetry at one specific our mutual communication in terms of proposition at talking table. And afterward we get that proposition, first we could know beforehand we'd gotten it, we just were at  ¬(P ∨ ¬P). Namely we could have gotten from  ¬(P ∨ ¬P), we very occasionally and accidentally had gotten P ∨ ¬P. But that systemtized understanding itself could be gotten only after getting the proposition, P and next P ∨ ¬P, then necessarily we from the beginning even at the time we'd never been conscious to P, had either ¬P in mind.
And with our taking one specific proposition P, we kind of remember ¬P. And necessarily we deductively know all systematized mind holding ideas with  P ∨ ¬P and my supposing  ¬(P ∨ ¬P) either.

Then, if we from the beginning take either  ¬(P ∨ ¬P) into account, we could not need to propose the principle the Law of Excluded Middle.

If we could smartly deal with now necessary formula at these serially explained logic process, next shown things couldf be possible.

　　　　                                        
                                                                 P  ≒ ¬（¬P)
                                                                   
                                                                         ⇓

　　　　　　　　　¬（¬P)　≒　（（P）∨（¬P））∨　¬（（P）∨（¬P））

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
                                                                         ⇓
                   
　　　　　　　　　               
                                                  ¬（（P）∨（¬P））≒　¬　∀, 

                                                    
                                                 simultaneously, it deduces us

                                                                
                                                          ¬  ∃   ≠    ¬　∀

Necesarily, at our mind's deliberating process, these serially done procedure could have been realized so synchronically and complexly. 

However, the questionable research and analysis just now could have been started.
Very many procedure I'll cover will wait for me from the moment on. And that discoveing travel would be my life signification in lifetime and lifespan.  

                                                 
Mar. 25th.   2021