On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

2+2=4 is false when the underlying system is base 3.  Likewise 1+1=10 in base 2, 7+1=10 in base 8, and so forth.

Hence your equivocation. When we say 2+2=4 we're already talking about 2 things and 2 things being four things, which can't be false, we're not talking about other kinds of mathematics.

 You're only arguing that they're false because of your cognitive bias to base 10.

It's not a cognitive bias. It's a case of me not equivocating. When I say 2+2=4 I'm clearly talking about two things and two things being 4 things, I'm not talking about other forms of mathematics, when someone says "not necessarily because it may not be in base 10" they're wrong because I was talking about base 10.

I'm not talking about different concepts besides base 10. I'm saying if we're talking that 2+2=4 in base 10 then 2+2=4 in base 10. If we're talking 2 things and two things are four things then that's what we're talking about.

It doesn't matter whether it's base 10 or base 3 or what base it is: two objects together with two objects is four objects. Maybe "two objects with two objects is four objects" means something else in a different base, but it doesn't change the reality that four objects is four objects.

Changing the label isn't going to change the fact that two things together with two things, in the normal base 10 sense that we mean it, is always four things.  

Likewise, you're arguing that what is true in this universe must be true in all possible universes because of your cognitive bias that 2+2=4 which it certainly does here, provided that we're talking about base 10, and we're NOT talking about a system where axiomatically 2+2=5.

It's not a cognitive bias, it's your own equivocation.