> Logic is fundamental and proven to be able to apply in reality
Nothing is fundamental in logic, 2500 years later and we still haven't "figure out" Zeno's paradoxes, and as such we haven't been able to refute either Parmenides's nor Heraclitus's way of looking at things/reality.
Yes, the statements brought up by Aristotle a little later allowed us to be pretty efficient further down the road (without Aristotle's "Logic" we probably wouldn't have had "science" as we know it), but there's nothing fundamental about them. And I suspect Aristotle himself knew that, almost the only way he could attack Heraclitus's views were "ad hominem"s, there was nothing "fundamental" in his explanations of why Heraclitus was wrong and why he was right.
Zeno’s paradox is solved in a better framework for that problem.
Maths is about creating an abstract framework with the mind (which somehow exists without typical bounds of time and space like everything else we can touch). Then you use the framework to sometimes solve real problems.
Nothing is fundamental in logic, 2500 years later and we still haven't "figure out" Zeno's paradoxes, and as such we haven't been able to refute either Parmenides's nor Heraclitus's way of looking at things/reality.
Yes, the statements brought up by Aristotle a little later allowed us to be pretty efficient further down the road (without Aristotle's "Logic" we probably wouldn't have had "science" as we know it), but there's nothing fundamental about them. And I suspect Aristotle himself knew that, almost the only way he could attack Heraclitus's views were "ad hominem"s, there was nothing "fundamental" in his explanations of why Heraclitus was wrong and why he was right.