(November 6, 2016 at 1:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: Actually I did pre-empt it, nubbins.  I was typing at the same time you were, lol.

I saw your post updating with more and more sentences after I had posted. No matter, it's not important either way.

Quote:They may both be formal sets of axioms,

Yes.

Quote: but one is not the other,

Yes.

Quote: and to insist that they are not equvalent and then call one as though it were the other

No. I've never done that. Apples are not oranges. Bob is not Fred. Our logic is not that of goblygoop. To call one as the other would be to say that our logic = goblygoop. I have not done that. I don't care about identity. I care about the class of thing that they are. Just like we can identify that Bob/Fred have arms and legs, we can therefore conclude they are of the class 'human'. Exactly the same with sets of axioms. They are of the class 'logic'. Call them whatever the hell you want. Boppity and goblygoop. And whenever we spot their attributes (i.e. one being they are a set of axioms) we can then say 'ah, it's not a tricycle, it's not a dinosaur, it's logic'. And one inherent definition of sets of axioms is that they are in fact logical, whether it be boppity, goblygoop blah blah blah.

Quote: is both illogical, and demonstrative of a poor grasp of the english language.

You're warping the english language nonsensically.

(November 6, 2016 at 1:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No. I've never done that.

-guess it's time to start quoting you again.

Quote:It doesn't matter what they mean in our 3-d universe, because I'm interested in the incomprehensible meaning that another universe with another set of logical rules would have, and if that meaning can actually be said to be "logical", which in the OP I have shown it is.

What haven't you said, again....and of course you tried so hard to ditch the many, many times you said it in the last thread only to fuck up again, huh.  

Quote: I don't care about identity.

Clearly, and that's the problem.

Quote:I care about the class of thing that they are.

Then call goblygoop axiomish, since it's the class of thing that concerns you...or just, idk.."a set of axioms"?  It's not logical, that's reserved for another set of axioms, logical ones.  In addition to identity, you don't care about equivocation or false equivalencies... yet again, the problem. If you want these things to be different, if you must insist that they are different, then allow them to be different, ffs.

(November 6, 2016 at 1:26 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 1:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No. I've never done that.

-guess it's time to start quoting you again.

Quote:It doesn't matter what they mean in our 3-d universe, because I'm interested in the incomprehensible meaning that another universe with another set of logical rules would have, and if that meaning can actually be said to be "logical", which in the OP I have shown it is.

What haven't you said, again....and of course you tried so hard to ditch the many, many times you said it in the last thread only to fuck up again, huh.  

Quote: I don't care about identity.

Clearly, and that's the problem.

Quote:I care about the class of thing that they are.

Then call goblygoop axiomish, since it's the class of thing that concerns you...or just, idk.."a set of axioms"?  It's not logical, that's reserved for another set of axioms, logical ones.  In addition to identity, you don't care about equivocation or false equivalencies... yet again, the problem.  If you want these things to be different, if you must insist that they are different, then allow them to be different, ffs.

Your entire argument is uninteresting, because it's a triviality of the english language. Look I can play your game too:

Bicycles are bicycly
oranges are orangy
toast is toasty

They mean absolutely nothing. 

The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

(November 6, 2016 at 1:51 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Your entire argument is uninteresting, because it's a triviality of the english language. Look I can play your game too:

Bicycles are bicycly
oranges are orangy
toast is toasty

They mean absolutely nothing. 

As does the statement "goblygoop is logical".   You have explicitly imagined a system that is -different-...and then described it with the term used for the very system you distanced it from.  Let it be different, then it might be meaningful...maybe even interesting. As long as goblygoop is logical..it's just fucking logic fallen, it's not different, it's the same - and 2+2=4, not 5. It's no fault of mine that you hinged this whole thing on an equivocation..which is just another way of saying that you hinged it upon a triviality of language.

Quote:The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

Uninteresting shit is uninteresting.  You could have just moved on, we've agreed that if things were different they would be different.  I'm even willing to entertain the notion that an alternate universe may have alternate rules.  But no, no, you had to make another thread and peddle the same shit over an uninteresting bit of idiocy, cheifly becaus you neither understand nor care for identity, or a host of other logical rules which help us to -have- informative..interesting, rational discussions.

-If- there were another universe, with another set of rules, that would be interesting. What would those rules look like? What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be? How might it be, in that universe, that 2 and 2 yielded 5? Maybe...in that universe, when you combined 2 of something with 2 of something, an extra something popped into existence. If that were the case, then their math would likely reflect that. Afer all, this ath, these logical rules, they're all, ultimately, based in observations of our universe. With respect to how we see math, a problem arises in such a system, in that some mathematical operations could yield more than one value. A sort of indeterminancy at points. I think that this would make some things more difficult for whatever species tried to use it the way we use ours.

Rhythm Wrote:You have explicitly imagined a system that is -different-...and then described it with the term used for the very system you distanced it from

Wrong, because

FtR Wrote:The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

(November 5, 2016 at 7:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 3:57 am)Irrational Wrote: I'm still not sure how you have arrived at that truth. Logically speaking (i.e. using the logic that we hold dear to), we can rule out the logical possibility of concept(2) + concept(2) = concept(5). As such, even if it was somehow true that logic is wrong in this case, it would be true despite our logic. But if it is true despite our logic, then I'm not sure how we can ever know it's true.

We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

Ok, so after all this back and forth arguing between you and Rhythm, what should we take out of this exactly? That "goblygoop" is logical in that universe where "goblygoop" happens to be logical?

I'll grant you that. Now what? It's still not logical using our logic. So what's the point?

(November 6, 2016 at 2:05 am)Irrational Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 7:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

Ok, so after all this back and forth arguing between you and Rhythm, what should we take out of this exactly? That "goblygoop" is logical in that universe where "goblygoop" happens to be logical?

I'll grant you that. Now what? It's still not logical using our logic. So what's the point?

Have a look for yourself: http://atheistforums.org/thread-45714-po...pid1425952

You will only have to go 3 - 4 back-and-forths deep to get a gist of where this logic stuff sprang from.

Rhythm Wrote:What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be

I can think of one really neat word which could describe that.