> Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they

> Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they rely on concepts like "truth" and "logic" which we experience subjectively. I agree that it is this way, but does it have to be? Is it physically necessary to perceive defection from this dilemma as "pedantic" (see below, how surprising!), or might it only be culturally necessary? Take your claim for example: you are not distinguishing between logic itself and our experience of logic. You are objectively correct that there is in fact no distinction on one level (experience), but that is not the only level that exists. How are questions of this nature (essentially: existence) answered in the physical realm, where we have high levels of skill and experience?