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.