On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

In the hypothetical universe, it's not a hypothetical.  It's a fact.  The identity (see, look ma!, identity, indentity identity identity) of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. Not 2, not 3, and 4 is right out.  5.

You already admitted that that would violate the law of identity so you can't have it alongside it.

I hope you realize logically contradictory things cannot exist. Even in the hypothetical. You can't even imagine a square circle, you can mention it. You can say "if there were square circles there would be square circles", but such thing cannot actually be imagined or conceived. You're saying "If there was not A there would be not A" but you can't even have a tautology like that without A=A.

2+2=4 is a tautology. 2+2=5 is a logical contradiction. Again, as Bennyboy said, you could call it "2+2=5" but it wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 is impossible. It would have to be 4. Two things and two things would have to be four things because that's just another way of saying that two things and two things would have to be two things and two things. That A has to be A.

You just moved the goalposts. You're introducing identity into 2+2=5 now, because you failed to explain how you can hypothesize something without hypothesizing something (because you can't explain that, no one can explain that, it's not logically possible), without A=A. Even though you already admitted that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity.

If you're giving a hypothetical universe an identity, you're applying A=A to it. If 2+2=5, as you already admitted, you're violating that. Hypothetical universes that violate logical laws cannot exist. Nothing can exist that is nothing. Everything has to be something. Every thing has to be a thing. Every A has to be A. Every 2+2 has to be 2+2 every 4 has to be 4, and every 2+2 has to be 4 is just another way of saying that every 2+2 has to be 2+2 or every 4 has to be 4 or every A has to be A or every something has to be something.

Fun to see you wrestle with yourself, to see you think that the OP can define a tautology without 2+2=4 and without A=A when tautologies already presuppose the truth that 2+2=4 or A=A. 2+2=4 is just another way of saying 4=4 or 2+2=2+2 or A=A. You can't have a tautology without A=A.

You can't have a hypothetical tautology that A=A because all tautologies are based on the most fundamental tautology of all: That A=A.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Our universe would be a little enclave of logic within a larger, absurd, reality...If, in some other chunk, some other set of rules existed....would it be sensible or useful to call those rules logical rules?

I don't believe so. The kind of principles we seem to be calling logical rules are those sorts of principles that would be considered absolutes. Either they are necessarily so or they are not. If there is anywhere that "our" absolutes don't hold then clearly they are not necessarily so. And if they are not necessarily so then they aren't really absolutes, are they?

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay Rhythm, since the OP has buggered off, you address the question that destroys and assfucks the OP's premise and hypothetical instead then:

Question to the OP.

When you're saying Goblygoop has none of our logical laws are you saying that it has none of our logical laws? If yes then you've given it the law of identity. If no then you've given it the law of identity. Your premise is fucked.

To phrase it to you directly, Rhythm, when Goblygoop is described as having none of our logical laws is it being described as having none of our logical laws?

[The Grand Nudger]

In the hypothetical universe, it's not a hypothetical.  It's a fact.  The identity (see, look ma!, identity, indentity identity identity) of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. Not 2, not 3, and 4 is right out.  5.

You already admitted that that would violate the law of identity so you can't have it alongside it.

Ham....you need to quote as having done so.  Because you might be mixing up your contexts, lol.  OFC it violates the law of identity, as it applies in this universe.  That isn't in dispute between us.  However, if, in that universe, 2+2=5....the identity of the sum of two and two -is- 5, and cannot be -not 5-..assuming the law holds there as it applies in that universe.

I hope you realize logically contradictory things cannot exist. Even in the hypothetical. You can't even imagine a square circle, you can mention it. You can say "if there were square circles there would be square circles", but such thing cannot actually be imagined or conceived. You're saying "If there was not A there would be not A" but you can't even have a tautology like that without A=A.

Unfortunately, we're not referring to a logically contradictory thing.  The reason that you can;t have a square circle is becvause there s no such thing, that;s not what the term circle refer to.  In the universe we are talking about...2+2 -does- equal 5.  You can have that, in factm, in my example, it;s all you can have, because identity holds...as it applies there.

2+2=4 is a tautology.

Here, by reference to the relationships between quantities as they are expressed here.  Yes.

2+2=5 is a logical contradiction.

Here, yes.

Again, as Bennyboy said, you could call it "2+2=5" but it wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 is impossible.

Here, yes.

It would have to be 4.

Here....yes....

Two things and two things would have to be four things because that's just another way of saying that two things and two things would have to be two things and two things. That A has to be A.

Here.......yes........

You just moved the goalposts. You're introducing identity into 2+2=5 now, because you failed to explain how you can hypothesize something without hypothesizing something (because you can't explain that, no one can explain that, it's not logically possible), without A=A. Even though you already admitted that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity.

Again you swing and miss.  I introduced it, loooong ago..explicitly, because you demanded it, to show you that it doesn't matter if we include it, as I've stated about a dozen times now.  In the hopes that..if I included it, since you insist it cannot be ommitted, you wqould stop bickering -about- it...and answer the fucking question posed by the godamned hypothetical, in the hopes that you would cease to object with a mountain of unecessary straw about how it just can;t be so because identity has to be included, hell or high water! Well, it is included, now what?

If you're giving a hypothetical universe an identity, you're applying A=A to it. If 2+2=5, as you already admitted, you're violating that.

Again, in that universe, 2=2 does equal 5, 5 is the identity of the sum, and it cannot be 5 and not 5.  It doesn;t violate the law, the law is simply being applied to the product of other, different laws...differences which have always explicitly been the case, in every example.

Hypothetical universes that violate logical laws cannot exist. Nothing can exist that is nothing. Everything has to be something. Every thing has to be a thing. Every A has to be A. Every 2+2 has to be 2+2 every 4 has to be 4, and every 2+2 has to be 4 is just another way of saying that every 2+2 has to be 2+2 or every 4 has to be 4 or every A has to be A or every something has to be something.

Again, no one; asked whether or not such a universe can exist.  Not the question...arguments to that effect are straw.

Fun to see you wrestle with yourself, to see you think that the OP can define a tautology without 2+2=4 and without A=A when tautologies already presuppose the truth that 2+2=4 or A=A. 2+2=4 is just another way of saying 4=4 or 2+2=2+2 or A=A. You can't have a tautology without A=A.

You can't have a hypothetical tautology that A=A because all tautologies are based on the most fundamental tautology of all: That A=A.

And a=a, in my example..it's just that a..in that universe, is 5, not 4.  Mostly, because it;s a different universe with different laws where, surprise surprise, different shit happens when you add a quantity of two to a quantity of two.

The only question asked, the actual point of contention...the only thing you can refer to and -not- pitch straw..is whether or not such rules as those could be called logical. It really has been that simple, all this time, a giant, steaming, illogical, equivocation over the term logical. Not the possibility of universes. Not the universality of logical laws. Those things are irrelevant, regardless of whther such a universe is possible...and defying everything you know of logic in this universe..there, 2+2 does equal 5...the rules that lead to that aren't the same rules, they aren't logical rules. They need their own term. Denying the possibility of such laws does not answer the question, it doesn't even approach the question, and you don't have to do so to answer the question. If it's all true, they're just not logical laws. Even if the ruleset as a whole includes identity, that single inclusion is not sufficient condition to classify the ruleset as logical. Inisting that it be included, and in fact including it, doesn;t change that, it doesn;t make them logical, and it;s inclusiion by itself does not make them the same, and so self contradictory with respect to their being different.

[Edwardo Piet]

Our universe would be a little enclave of logic within a larger, absurd, reality...If, in some other chunk, some other set of rules existed....would it be sensible or useful to call those rules logical rules?

I don't believe so. The kind of principles we seem to be calling logical rules are those sorts of principles that would be considered absolutes. Either they are necessarily so or they are not. If there is anywhere that "our" absolutes don't hold then clearly they are not necessarily so. And if they are not necessarily so then they aren't really absolutes, are they?

Nice scare quotes. Because they're not really our logical rules, because they're absolutes, they apply everywhere, in the entirety of the totality of all existence: not just our universe, but all universes. That's why they're called logical absolutes. Exactly right.

As my sig says, hypotheticals and tautologies themselves, and everything else both potential and actual, absolutely everything, real or imagined: it's all based on the law of identity, not the other way around. Universes are based on the law of identity, not the other way around.

Why are two things and two things four things? Not many people know how to answer that. WHY are two things and two things four things? I know the answer: two things and two things are four things because two things and two things and four things is just the same thing expressed differently. 2+2=4 because 2 +2 means 4. We could define it differently, but that would just to be label the laws differently rather than change the laws themselves.

2+2 and 4 are the same thing. So 2+2=4 just means 4=4. Or A=A. It's all just the law of identity labelled differently. Because two things to the left of me and two things to the right of me is just another way of saying "four things either side of me, half on the left and half on the right", there is no sense in any universe in which two things to the left of me and two things to the right of me could be three things to the right of me and two things to the left of me.... if an extra thing popped into existence to the right of me, then that's irrelevant. It would simply mean that there was in fact three things to the right of me and two things to the left of me, so it would be 2+3 =5 not 2+2=5. 2+2 can't =5 unless you redefine and relabel things. CD already demonstrated this without realizing it by talking about different bases. So it was kind of funny when he then agreed with me saying that we're talking about the laws themselves, not their concepts, after he'd just talked about different conceptualizations and languages like base 3 and base 10 etc, lol. And then he jumped to talking about an extra thing popping into existence, lol, which, again.... it doesn't work like that. That makes no sense. That's just an extra thing popping into existence. You have to hold yourself to the words you use. If we're talking about other universes we have to do it in our own language.

[FallentoReason]

LOL.  Yeah, I'm done here.  

Forest, meet trees.

I've been saying it for awhile, baffled by bullshit.  That's the god botherer's stock and trade.  It's useful in that it can make a very smart person just implode, fantastically, as we've seen here.

Well played on that, btw, Fallen, well played. 

Not my fault that someone here isn't fun at philosophy parties.

[Edwardo Piet]

Philosophy is fun. Buggers who lose patience aren't

I'd never tire of this, I'd only get busy with something else.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ham....you need to quote as having done so.  Because you might be mixing up your contexts, lol.  OFC it violates the law of identity, as it applies in this universe.  That isn't in dispute between us.  However, if, in that universe, 2+2=5....the identity of the sum of two and two -is- 5, and cannot be -not 5-..assuming the law holds there as it applies in that universe.

Look. 2+2=4 is absolute as is the law of identity, what universe it is is irrelevant. You're just flat out wrong, we're talking about logical absolutes here, not logical concepts.

"2+2=4" is just an expression of "4=4" in another form. It's just the law of identity expressed in numbers. 2+2 has the same identity as 4, because it's the same thing, as does 3+1. 2+2 can not equal 5 because 5 is more than 2 and 2.

Please go and learn about logical absolutes. It doesn't matter what universe it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

2+2=4 refers to an observed behavior between quanties in this universe.  The hypothetical evades that behavior.  The observation is different.  The law of identity, applied in either case, will apply to whatever behavior is expressed.  

So, here, because 2+2 -is- 4, it cannot be otherwise.  It cannot be what it is and what it is not.

There, 2+2 -is- 5, it cannot be otherwise.  It cannot be what it is and what it is not.

This s not a contradiction to the law of identity, the law of identity is being equally applied to contradictory -universes-.  So, even if you insist that a different universe with different rules -must have- the law of identity..it does not help to tell us why or if we can call those different rules logical rules.  It can be, and has been applied.  Your objection has been satisfied, and the answer is still 5.  It; application alone does not make the rules of this universe the same as the rules of ur universe, one has to assume that alot of other different shit must be going on to express itslelf in that behavior even if the law of identoity is in full swng with reference to what -is- in that universe.

Your objection, still, isn't to the point of contention anyway,....which is whether or not the rules of a universe which would make that true...just assume it, stop overthinking it and assume it....can be called logical.

(I hope you appreciate that the hypothetical we've been discussing isn't even my baby, I disagree with it, and am still advocating it for no other reason than to get some strictly rational objections worked up to -it-, and not some other question.)

[FallentoReason]

Philosophy is fun. Buggers who lose patience aren't

I'd never tire of this, I'd only get busy with something else.

You do know what a hypothetical is, right?