On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

For the record, I was sleeping everyone. But thanks for thinking of me. It was fun reading things about me while I was in absentia.

[FallentoReason]

If in the sum total of all possible universes at least one unintelligible universe exists then by necessity are other universes are also unintelligible. No matter how many alternate universes exist in a greater multiverse there will always only be one reality - all that is, was or ever will be. Now, suppose in another universe, of which we have no knowledge, the LOI does not hold. Since both our universe and the absurd alternate universe are in the same reality that means the reality within which we find ourselves is absurd. With respect to reality the LOI (and other logical and mathematical principles) must fail as a whole or not at all.

Could it be possible for two universes to not be metaphysically connected? That they are so far apart that no real causal connection exists between them. Otherwise what would it mean for there to be "multiple" universes? Isn't it still just one, bigger universe then?

[bennyboy]

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.

If 2 and 2 add to 5, then it's not really 2, and it's not really 5.  It's glooble and glorp. You might as well say that in another universe, "yellow" is a smell. It's not, because yellow is X, and you're talking about not-X.

[Edwardo Piet]

2+2=4 refers to an observed behavior between quanties in this universe.

No, it refers to two things and two things being the same thing as four things.

(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.)

Just see my sig dude. You've said repeatedly you think the hypothetical is nonsense, I do too. But you think it at least exists. I do not. I think it's mentioning exists but its usage doesn't. The OP is failing to say what he is trying to say.

Remember, the logical absolutes aren't universe-dependent. A=A in all universes. 2+2=2+2 in all universes. 4=4 in all universes. 2+2=4 in all universes. Otherwise you're talking about something different, and whatever you're talking about you're talking about whatever you're talking about.

Existence itself has to be existence itself. This includes all hypotheticals. All hypotheticals have to be hypotheticals. I'm talking about potential existences, as well as actual, I'm talking about hypothetical as well as non-hypothetical. Everything has to be itself. A=A

All universes and everything whether hypothetical or not, has to follow this law. Once you understand that A=A is a logical absolute you'll understand that it transcendes all hypotheticals and all universes. You can't even imagine or hypothesize something that doesn't follow the law that A=A. You can mention or label otherwise, but you can't actually successfully say otherwise, you can't successfully engage in a hypothetical. The use/mention distinction is important here. The labelling "2=2=5" is not 2+2=5. Not is an extra thing popping into existence when you add 2 things and 2 things "2+2=5". That isn't 2+2=5 either. There is no 2+2=5 just as there are no square circles.

You. Can. Not. Even. Create. A. Tautologicality. True. Hypothetical. Without. Presupposing. The. Law. Of. Identity. And. All. Of. Its. Forms. Including. A=A. And. 4=4. And 2+2=2+2 and 2+2=4.

The converse is also true... you can't have a universe that violates that. You can't have a universe where A=not A. Or 4=not 4. or 2+2= not 2+2. Or 2+2= not 4. Or 2+2=5. You can't have any of that.

All. Hypotheticals. And. All. Universes. And. All. Existences. And. All. Realities. And. Absolutely. Everything. Else. Whether. Real. Or. Imagined. Presupposes. The. Law. Of. Identity. Beforehand. Without. Exception. And that's all 2+2=4 is saying. That 2 things and 2 things is the same as four things, that it means the same as 4. That 2+2=2+2 is the same as 4=4 or A=A.

[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.

If 2 and 2 add to 5, then it's not really 2, and it's not really 5.  It's glooble and glorp.

Exactly right. Hence the failed hypotehtical.

[FallentoReason]

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.

If 2 and 2 add to 5, then it's not really 2, and it's not really 5.  It's glooble and glorp.

No, what it is, is a universe like nothing you can imagine. Forget 3-d space, that's for beginner universes. Gravity? Don't need it. This is what you're supposed to get out of "2 + 2 = 5", that this universe is weird. It doesn't run on the same stuff as ours. And that is impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds, so the best I could do was to give an impossible sum and hypothesize it to be true.

[Edwardo Piet]

If in the sum total of all possible universes at least one unintelligible universe exists then by necessity are other universes are also unintelligible. No matter how many alternate universes exist in a greater multiverse there will always only be one reality - all that is, was or ever will be. Now, suppose in another universe, of which we have no knowledge, the LOI does not hold. Since both our universe and the absurd alternate universe are in the same reality that means the reality within which we find ourselves is absurd. With respect to reality the LOI (and other logical and mathematical principles) must fail as a whole or not at all.

True. Either A= A or A does not =A applies to all universes and reality is a whole. But the answer is A does = A everywhere. A can not = not A anywhere.... for A to = not A would mean that things don't have to be themselves, which means reality as a whole wouldn't have to be reality as a whole, which is merely labeling something that is something as something that is not something, which is just a relabelling of "A=A" as "A=not A". It's still A=A.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, it's 2 and it's 5, it's not an issue of labeling...but I do think that some goblygoop is going on to make it so that 2+2=5......which is why, to the -actual-  point of contention....assuming the hypothetical as I must to answer it without straw, I say, no...whatever those rules are, they aren't logical, they need their own term. To differentiate the rules that yield a sum of 5 from two two's, from the rules that yield a sum of 4 from two twos.  

It may be that some of the rules are the same..it may be that they are both sets of rules...that there are similarities...but obviously, there's one big glaring difference in the hypothetical universe where 2+2=5.  It;s not even surprising, the OP wanted them to be different, he explicitly made the hypothetical such that they were...but, at the end, inexplicably desires to call what he has intentionally distanced from logical rules as we know them, logical.....by reference to ambiguity in a dictionary link.

As I said.  Equivocation.  Not an issue of the logical possibility of the hypothetical universe.  Not an issue of the universality of logical rules as we know them and as they apply to what we know.  Just an equivocation.

[Edwardo Piet]

You think it's not an issue of labelling but it is.

The OP is trying and failing to hypothesize the unhypothesizable. You can't imagine something unimaginable. You can't have a tautology or a defintiion without A=A or 2+2=4. These are absolute laws that transcend alternative universes or hypotheticals, this is about reality as a whole, both possible and actual, both real and imagined, both hypothetical and non-hypothetical, both imaginable and unimaginable, both supposed and non-supposed, both conceptualizated and non-conceptualized. I'm not talking about the concepts of mathematics or logic, i'm talking about the logical and mathematical absolutes. That A = A or 1 = 1 or 2+2 = 2+2/2+2 = 4

[The Grand Nudger]

No, what it is, is a universe like nothing you can imagine. Forget 3-d space, that's for beginner universes. Gravity? Don't need it. This is what you're supposed to get out of "2 + 2 = 5", that this universe is weird. It doesn't run on the same stuff as ours. And that is impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds, so the best I could do was to give an impossible sum and hypothesize it to be true.

Yet another weird ass claim about a silly hypothetical.  Obviously it;s not impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds.  I'm having no trouble.  You've just baffled some of the posters here with bullshit...they keep thinking there must be more to this than there is, some deeper flaw or fundamental misstep, it must be -impossible-...it just must be. No, it mustn't be, and even if it's possible or even -actual-, it just isn't logical, lol.

You want it to be different, so let it be different, and stop trying to call it the thing you intentionally made it different to.

@Ham. IDK buddy, it was trivially easy for me to imagine a universe in which the operation of addition between two quantities of two yielded a sum of 5. Just as it;s been trivally easy for me to see why such rulie as would make that true need their own term to differentiate them from rules that -do not- make that true. No plumbing the depths of the structure of the cosmos required, no notions of impossiblity or the universality of any specific logical law. Just an obfuscatory equivocation that;s clearly served it;s purpose by the added life this corpse of a hypothetical managed to dredge up in it's new home.