Originally Posted by tk102
I agree with Achilles here. Bahnsen here is trying to claim that mathematics and logic is inductive and cannot be known to be true. Unfortunately, if you allow me to use logic here, that is a contradiction.
What method? The method of defining numbers? If the quantity denoted by '2' is increased by another quantity of '2' the final quantity is defined as '4' (for any base > 4).
Perhaps we should question whether the idea of any 'number' is has any real meaning outside the human experience as well. It's just as abstract as logic and even more simple. I suppose Bahnsen would suggest that numbers are inductive as well and hold no universality to them or that God is required for them to be reliable?
Well there is also another way of defining it. See you could also look at it like 2+2=22 if you were to use a somewhat different method of defining the combination of the numbers. We just assume that 2+2 means to combine the values of both not to join the two numbers together because we have been taught to do that. See it could be 2 flashes plus 2 flashes means 22. It is faster than flashing 22 times to let you know the number is 22. I mean think about how you tell someone a phone number when you are in a high noise location. Or in a location that prevents you from being able to tell them with voice.
I had thought about something similar when I was working with number sequences one night...
Before I hit that one, I had been using mathematical equasions to figure out the missing number in the sequence. in this case the missing number is 312211. See if you can guess the next number in the sequence.