dylan
The problem is, to accept or reject it presumes I already have a system of symbols that do accurately represent reality, else why else would I accept or reject it?
Reality is always what you can get away with, to sound a lot like RA Wilson which is not my intention.
Bertrand Russell trying to sound smarter?! Ahh…I could make a .sig out of this… 
erislover: I don’t understand. What do you mean?
Umm…I have to go now. I’ll be back in about 17 hours. Thanks for the discussion. If you have time to explain your viewpoint more fully, please do. I’ll reply tomorrow.
Yes, but it would surprise me if a quart of ping-pong balls added to a quart of ping pong balls wasn’t two quarts of ping pong balls.
Russell has his own way of looking at numbers that seems to me to be quite distinct from all the uses we put them to.
Social issues. Social issues. Social issues. LOL LOL LOL
In the physical world, yes, logic definately rules! But, does it in the social/human world?
If you are referring to my response of, “It’s more like I claim that my PQP system is an accurate representation of reality. Would you accept that claim?” then:
PQP accurately models what we use it to model. It applies to everything it applies to. We do not currently know the extent to which we may use it to model things. Our determination of the success of modelling is also dependent on other models in which we do have a high confidence. Somewhere in this stack lies at least one unsupported and unsupportable model. I highly suspect that there are in fact several of them.
I think that in your different examples of addition, you are confusing different meanings of the word.
Also, yes you can set up many different systems, but those system always follow logical rules. The rules are always explained in terms of if, thens, and buts etc. etc. thus the nature of all systems is the same. We live in a rational universe and all things can be accurately described by logic.
You need to give more information. Even if you do not use logic (which is impossible, but I mean use logic in an intentional sense) You will need more information then that. You will consider what you like to eat, if you have any special dietary needs, etc. You will end up having reasons for what you chose. When you have reasons for something, the relationships between a thing and its reasons can, and always will, be described by logic. This is so utterly fundamental to the very nature of existence that it is impossible to even imagine it any other way.
When Muad’Dib says “2+2=4”, he’s not making a claim about the symbol for two, four, plus, or equals. He’s making a claim about the concepts those symbols point to.
He is, of course, correct.
Dear Abbey,
Which logic, exactly, is utterly fundamental?
Signed,
Epistemologically Limited
No, it doesn’t. If we use it to model addition and subtraction, it fails to represent some concepts. Similarly, can we be sure that full mathematics is sufficient to represent reality in? I’d argue not (well, that’s what I’ve been arguing all along, so I’d better stay consistent 
) Also, perhaps it can represent some concepts that can’t exist in reality.
The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide: I know. That isn’t what we were talking about.
Muad’Dib: Yes, these systems always follow logical rules, but these systems are just models. They are logical by definition! It doesn’t mean that the actuality must also follow logical rules. Umm…which brings us full circle I think.
Anyway, must go now. I wish I’d had more time today to post. Have a good weekend.
So don’t use it to model addition and subtraction. It models what it models. My calculator can be said to not accurately model numeric calculations since it can’t give me an answer accurate to 27 significant decimal places. Should I throw it away?
First, I will examine all of the options that are feasible. I have no food in the office, therefore I must go out. I have no car here (I carpool), therefore I must go somewhere within walking distance, unless someone else is going somewhere, and wouldn’t mind getting something for me.
checks
Nope, I’m on my own. Okay, there is only one place that I have determined I like that is close, and that is Quizno’s. Therefore, I will be eating at Quizno’s. Now, what should I eat? I have determined, through trial and error, the set of foods there that I like. I usually can’t eat more than a small-sized sandwich, so I shall limit my options to small sandwiches and soup. I feel hungry, and soup would not satiate me, thus I will eat a sandwich.
Hmm… there are three sandwiches which my brain tells me sound good, so I shall get one of those. One I had recently, and my brain also tells me that I am in the mood for something different, so I shall cross it off my list. That leaves two choices. Since I am trying to save money, I shall purchase the cheaper of the two.
Black Angus Steak sandwich, here I come…
Jeff