[moocowduckquack]

Depends if you take absolute or probablistic logic to be the more fundamental. Absolute logic has held sway for a very long time, because it is obvious that either something is there, or it is not. Since the birth of quantum mechanics however, it is looking as though probability might be a little more fundamental to reality itself than we had previously assumed. Look at the classic "Cogito ergo sum". With an absolute perspective on logic, you cannot get much further, however if looked at probalistically, you can start looking at options and start assigning them weights. Now this doesn't get you any closer to the concept of what is absolutely true beyond the initial statement, however I am not sure that it is a given that reality itself is absolute for all parameters, so the trap might be that many of what we percieve as flaws in induction are actually meaningless questions until they are reformulated probabalistically.

Alternatively I might be talking bollocks, I did first think of this while pretty drunk.

[andrewflnr]

The probabilities in QM are determined by absolute, deterministic equations. I'd still say absolute logic is fundamental, at least in physics. When you start talking metaphysics, I don't think there's a good reason to assume logic works at all; all the logic we can observe is embedded "in" physics. Who knows what it's like "outside"?