On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

Here, let me just slide right past all the shit that gets you so worked up.  I think we can do that and make progress.

Righty dokey.

If they're possible, they're logical. Not in all senses, no.

b-mine

It's the bolded bit, that the question is actually asking you.  So, you've got a "yes and no" answer, on your hands.

Are they logical in the sense of reasonable or realistic? Intutively I would say, no. I think when it comes to logical laws, it's the same laws for all universes. After all, all universes are part of the same reality... or perhaps I should say "If all universes are not part of the same reality, then what do we call the totality of all universes if not "reality"?"

IMO, logical laws are absolute and metauniversal, not universal. We've already found logical absolutes that must apply to all universes, so my intuition says they're all like that, not just some of them.

I don't mean they're realistic or reasonable. I mean if they're logically possible they're, logically, logically possible.

Right, and this wasn't the question, which is why I've been trying to steer you past it.  Logical possibility can only refer to what we know, and our logical laws.  Patently useless in the hypothetical of more or different laws.

Well yeah but I'm including things that are logically possible even hypothetically in all universes, remember. What is impossible in all universes even as a hypothetical? A= not A or 2+2=5. A hypothetical where A = not A is a hypothetical that is not a hypothetical. A hypothetical where the sum of two things and two things is not the sum of two things and two things is a hypothetical that is not a hypothetical.

It doesn't matter if they're different logical laws, if they're logical laws they're, logically, logical laws.

This begs the question....the question eing "are those laws, whatever they are, logical laws"

Lol. Not it doesn't beg the question, it answers the question. If they're not logical laws they're, logically, not logical laws. Of course they're logical laws if they're alternative logical laws.

But they can only exist if they obey logical absolutes.

Not the question.

The question implicitly presupposes logical absolutes despite explictly denying them. I've already addressed the question repeatedly. Saying "the question doesn't make as much sense as you think it does, even hypothetically." is an answer to the question. Saying "it cannot violate the logical absolutes so it cannot be logical" is also answering the question. Saying "Even if it's an alternative logical law it's still logical because it's still a logical law." is also answering the question. These are all answers to the question.

Nor, honestly, anything a reasonable person should claim.  Logical laws do not proscribe what can or cannot exist.

The logical absolutes do. Something that is not something cannot be something. Something nonexistent can't be existent. Not A cannot =A.

They simply describe what we can and cannot rationally infer about -whatever exists-.

Nah you're equivocating and talking about the conceptualization of the logical absolutes instead of the logical absolutes again. Our concepts that describe the logical absolutes describe what we cannot rationally infer about whatever exists. The logical absolutes themselves are whatever logically must be the case and cannot not be the case regardless of what we can nor cannot infer and regardless of whether we even exist. Whatever is, is. That's just an absolute metauniversal fact. Which universe it is or whether it's hypothetical or not is irrelevant. Our own conceptualization of "whatever is, is" referring to the absolute metauniversal fact that whatever is is, is itself not a metauniversal fact because there can be other conceptualizations of the metauniversal fact that whatever is, is which may not be "whatever is, is" but instead be something like "Zeebonk boobonk squoop muck dork" or even an entirely different system of logic describing the same logical absolute that whatever is, is. But it must describe the same thing.

"Whatever is, is" being how we describe the fact that whatever is is in our won particular universe =/= the absolute fact that whatever is is regardless of the universe.