@ Rhythm

Here is why the OP does more than merely ask a question:

(November 5, 2016 at 1:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: "But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion.

This is false. And it's not a bare assertion at all. 2+2 will always equal 4 no matter what. It doesn't matter what universe it's in, universes are irrelevant whether actual or hypothetical.

(November 6, 2016 at 3:07 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 2:24 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: It's also not necessarily true in this universe.

But I don't know what it would even mean for 2 + 2 to = 5. X = A + B =/= X?

It's necessarily true in our universe, according to a priori logic.

It's necessarily true in all universes even hypothetical ones because of the Law of Identity.

(November 6, 2016 at 12:48 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Alasdair Ham Wrote:Universes can't evade logic.

No, they cannot. I completely agree. However, our hypothetical *isn't* evading logic. Its mere existence evokes *another* set of axioms by which it functions, rendering our logic obsolete *only if* you want to rationalise their conclusions such as 2 + 2 = 5. This *cannot* show if goblygoop (their logic) is logical or not.

Your hypotehtical fails to do that. You can't even hypothesize something that makes no sense. Universes are irrelevant. "2+2=5" equates to "something that isn't something else is something else"... no universe can be like that.

I'm fucking tired of all the stupid fucking use/mention errors. Just because we can mention "2+2=5" doesn't mean it's even possible to be used in another hypothetical universe. In fact it can't be possible in any universe. The Law of Identity and the fact that 2+2=4 is necessarily true of all universes. You can't escape it even hypotehtically by saying in universe X2 it doesn't apply because you implicitly imply it even by saying that.

(November 5, 2016 at 11:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Hammy Wrote:No it isn't. There is no EVEN HYPOTHETICAL universe without the law of identity because you're hypothesiszing the law of identity itself when you say you aren't even when you think you aren't.

In the OP's hypothetical, it is, full stop.

Okay this is my point. You're 100% wrong here. The OP tries and fails to hypothesize a universe without the law of identity. It's impossible to hypotehsize that.

You're ignoring the hidden implicit premise in the OP which is "The Law of Identity must hold".

ALL PREMISES OF ANY KIND imply that. Even all hypothetical premises. You can't hypothesize ANYTHING without first implying the truth of the law of identity.

Quote: If you keep saying "no no no no, such a universe is impossible"..you aren't arguing against the op's actual position, you're pitching straw.

No, you're strawmanning me. I'm not merely saying that such a universe is impossible in actuality I'm saying such a universe is impossible to describe even hypotehtically and the OP has failed to do so.

Quote:  The ops position, is that it might be possible for illogical laws to be logical.  Argue that...you know, the ops -actual- position.  The point of contention.  The question asked.

What you don't understand is that the OP is implicitly saying "In hypotehtical universe X2 there are different logical laws, except the law of identity which must exist."

That's implied. It doesn't matter if the OP is trying to hypothesize universes without any of 'our' logical laws. By describing ANY universe at all it automatically presupposes the law of identity.

Rhythm Wrote:

me Wrote:"this universe doesn't have the law of identitiy"= "the identity of this universe is one without the law of identity"=nonsense.

There is no even hypothetical universe without the law of identity in the same way that there's no even hypothetical universe in which A=not A.

...staaaaaaaahp.

Because what I said is 100% true?

When the OP tries to describe a universe without the law of identity it is doing the same thing as describing a universe with an identity of not having an identity... so it fails to even describe what it's trying to describe.

The OP is doing the equivalent of saying "The universe I am describing has no identity only not really actually it has one."

I don't think you seem to understand that a nonsensical description fails to describe anything. It's not simply that the OP is wrong, it's worse than wrong. The OP may as well be "jasgfasogjasgo".

Alasdair Ham Wrote:By describing ANY universe at all it automatically presupposes the law of identity.

Only because I'm conditioned to the language we use in this universe. That's already been mentioned, that we can't begin to comprehend what a different universe would be like. But you can grab that sentence right there and know what I'm trying to say as the hypothetical. I'm not required to give you the metaphysics of a different set of logic. That would be impossible.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Alasdair Ham Wrote:By describing ANY universe at all it automatically presupposes the law of identity.

Only because I'm conditioned to the language we use in this universe. That's already been mentioned, that we can't begin to comprehend what a different universe would be like. But you can grab that sentence right there and know what I'm trying to say as the hypothetical. I'm not required to give you the metaphysics of a different set of logic. That would be impossible.

You're saying "if another universe were different, it would be different."

But your 2+2 example fails, because 2 is 2, 4 is 4, and 2 + 2 = 4.  If there were other quantities or properties than those, they wouldn't be those, and we wouldn't call them that.

You might as well say, in another universe, I might not be me.  I might be someone else.  But that's wrong-- that would be someone else, and not me at all.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:46 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 8:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Only because I'm conditioned to the language we use in this universe. That's already been mentioned, that we can't begin to comprehend what a different universe would be like. But you can grab that sentence right there and know what I'm trying to say as the hypothetical. I'm not required to give you the metaphysics of a different set of logic. That would be impossible.

You're saying "if another universe were different, it would be different."

But your 2+2 example fails, because 2 is 2, 4 is 4, and 2 + 2 = 4.  If there were other quantities or properties than those, they wouldn't be those, and we wouldn't call them that.

You might as well say, in another universe, I might not be me.  I might be someone else.  But that's wrong-- that would be someone else, and not me at all.

Here's a novel idea: there is such a universe with the law of multiple identities. Now 2 + 2 could have more than one answer. But we're still trying to rationalise something that our logic inherently can't describe. No example will be sufficient to provide us with a preview of goblygoop. So we need to move past that.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Alasdair Ham Wrote:By describing ANY universe at all it automatically presupposes the law of identity.

Only because I'm conditioned to the language we use in this universe.

Nope. The Law of Identity holds in all universes regardless of whether any beings exist to conceptualize it or not.

Quote: That's already been mentioned, that we can't begin to comprehend what a different universe would be like.

It doesn't matter. Whatever it's like it's like something it has some identity. And that implies the truth of the Law of Identity.

Quote: But you can grab that sentence right there and know what I'm trying to say as the hypothetical.

This is where *I* keep being strawmanned. The whole point is I don't give a crap what the hypothetical is nothing can be hypothesized at all without first implying the truth of the law of identity

There can be no hypotheticals or premises without the law of identity first holding. The fact that you can describe any hypothetical or premise at all already implies the law of identity.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:46 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 8:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Only because I'm conditioned to the language we use in this universe. That's already been mentioned, that we can't begin to comprehend what a different universe would be like. But you can grab that sentence right there and know what I'm trying to say as the hypothetical. I'm not required to give you the metaphysics of a different set of logic. That would be impossible.

You're saying "if another universe were different, it would be different."

But your 2+2 example fails, because 2 is 2, 4 is 4, and 2 + 2 = 4.  If there were other quantities or properties than those, they wouldn't be those, and we wouldn't call them that.

You might as well say, in another universe, I might not be me.  I might be someone else.  But that's wrong-- that would be someone else, and not me at all.

Correct.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:53 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Here's a novel idea: there is such a universe with the law of multiple identities. Now 2 + 2 could have more than one answer.

Nope. You don't understand the implications of what you're saying.

Saying "2+2 could equate to other than 4" is the same as saying "4 could equate to other than 4" or "A does not have to =A" which goes against the law of identity, a law which absolutely must hold in all universes because even if it didn't that itself would be an identity which would imply the truth of it.

A universe without the law of identity is a universe with an identity and so the law of identity still holds.

I laid out 4 premises and a conclusion for this already. I'm tired of repeating myself. I'm tired of debating people telling me that the law of identity doesn't have to exist in other universes when they clearly therefore don't understand the law of identity. The nature of the law of identity itself implies that there can't even be any premises or hypotheticals without implying the truth of it. There can't be anything without the truth of the law of identity.

For the law of identity to be false it would require A to =not A. Which means that if you describe a universe without the law of identity you are describing a universe with it. Do you see now?