I am very ignorant of the subject of mathematical logic, and logic in general. I am only going into my second year of university. The only logic I know is propositional logic, as was taught in the first year of my program of study. Of course I have read much about logic, and I am competent with propositional calculus, and I am well aware of the applications and successes in mathematics and computer science logic has provided. But one question has evaded me for some time now: how do we justify logic?

With a bit more detail, how do we know logic actually "matches up" with reality? Could it not be possible that logic (this extends to natural language & mathematics) is just our mind's way of interpreting and manipulating information in a way that is useful to us? I have begun considering the possibility that reality is not necessarily obliged to correspond with our laws of logic and the like.

Of course, I could just be drastically misinformed or misguided on this issue. I am looking for some answers. In your answers, please do not assume I know much of anything except for the basics of deductive logic; I am still a rookie. Though after this year hopefully I won't be anymore, as my program requires I take an intensive introduction to logic that runs through both fall & winter terms, covering everything from propositional logic to predicate calculus to metatheoretical results and the incompleteness theorems. Hopefully after this I will be much more knowledgable.

Readers may wonder why this is not posted in the logic & philosophy of mathematics forum. The answer is simple. I am not looking for a metatheoretical justification in the sense of metalogic. I am looking for a metaphysical justification of logic, if one exists.