Re[4]: Logic Fundamentals (was: Re: Re[2]: [tied] PIE word for "peo

At 5:32:32 PM on Tuesday, October 4, 2005, glen gordon
wrote:

> Brian:
>> In formal logic, whether approached from philosophy
>> or, as in my case, from mathematics, it is not an
>> assumption;

> No, it wouldn't be an "assumption" to a strict
> Logic priest :)

<g> In nomine Tarski et Smullyan et Figlio Bonacci. (Okay,
okay, the last one doesn't really belong.)

> However, clearly you can see that existence is
> fundamentally an assumption that is required to make Logic
> work.

No, actually I can't. But then, I never had much use for
omphaloskepsis.

> So, yes, it's sadly an assumption, making Logic merely a
> philosophy or religion one may choose to live by, like any
> other.

No, not like any other, unless one ignores questions of
relative efficacy. (Note that I don't intend to start a
long and off-topic argument about this; I just want to
register a contrary opinion.)

Brian