Is there some point at which you are going to stop having an argument with me about a position that -I- do not hold, over a subject in which we agree?  

I'm relating to you the specifics of the hypothetical, not my position on whether or not I agree with the specifics. In that universe, the identity, if we require identity, of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. In that case, as per the hypothetical, can the rules of that universe be called logical rules?

Stop telling me I'm strawmanning you and that you agree with me and then saying that in the OP's hypothetical the law of identity doesn't have to hold. You've said that repeatedly, that isn't a strawman, and you're not agreeing with me there you're disagreeing with me there.

Whatever universe is being described in the OP, it doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what other laws it has, it's still a universe being described. A=A. Law of identity. If it's not a universe being described then it's not even a hypothetical. You can't have logical laws without having logical laws. You can't have logical laws without A=A. The OP is not describing a hypothetical universe without the law of identity the OP has failed to describe such a thing because there's a hidden premise that it's saying what it is saying, that A=A and that contradicts there being no logical laws.

There can't be any hypotheticals without A=A. It doesn't matter what universe it is whether hypothetical or actual, existent or nonexistent, possible or impossible.

It -doesn't- have to hold, the ops hypothetical explicitly states a universe with different laws, I'm trying to split the baby with you, and asking you the question by reference to an example in which it does hold, even if it doesn't have to.  

There absolutely can be and -are- irrational hypotheticals.  I think that the OP hypothetical is one of them.  Lay that aside, because it's not what the op asks anyway, the op asks whether or not the rules of that hypothetical can be logical. Not whether or not such a universe can or does exist, whether or not such a hypothetical universe is logical (and agan, OP explicitly states that this iniverse is -not- a logical universe as we would call a universe logical, it;s different, different rules, different outcomes based upon those rules)

- I think, it;s a simple matter of definition. Even -if- such a universe can or did exist, the rules would not be logical rules, they would be "x" rules, as explicitly stated in the hypothetical by reference to a different universe, with different rules. It;s not an isssue, to my mind, whther or not such a universe can or does exist, or whether our logical laws hold in all universes, that is an irrelevance...even if both statements, and we both agree that they are true -outside of the hypothetical-, are true.

Question to the OP.

When you're saying Goblygoop has none of our logical laws are you saying that it has none of our logical laws? If yes then you've given it the law of identity. If no then you've given it the law of identity. Your premise is fucked.

(November 6, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It -doesn't- have to hold, the ops hypothetical explicitly states a universe with different laws

Yawn.

That already presupposes the law of identity. Any description of a universe at all has an identity.

(November 6, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There absolutely can be and -are- irrational hypotheticals.  

Not without them being irrational hypotheticals.

(November 6, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Lay that aside, because it's not what the op asks anyway, the op asks whether or not the rules of that hypothetical can be logical.

The hypothetical isn't even a hypothetical yet. The Law of Identity has to be admitted first.

When the OP says "Suppose there is a universe with other logical laws... oh but 2+2 still =4 and A=A" there's a hypothetical. Then the premise can be addressed. A hypothetical where A=not A or 2+2=5 isn't even a hypothetical. "A=not A" is not a premise. Unless you consider "sjaogjasgoasjgoas" a premise.

I can't even address a question that makes no sense and is based on a failed hypothetical. You can't have hypotheticals without the truth of A=A. "if X then Y" means "if X then Y".

It's like these people who ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" without realizing that there simply couldn't be nothing because nothing is nothing so the question makes no sense in the first place. It's a poorly phrased question. "Why did the big bang happen rather than not happen?" now THERE'S a quesiton.

(November 6, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It -doesn't- have to hold, the ops hypothetical explicitly states a universe with different laws

Yawn.

That already presupposes the law of identity. Any description of a universe at all has an identity.

-and so what, again.....the op wants a coherent universe, if we place the law of identity there, referent to what occurs in their universe when two quantities of two things yields five quantities of that thing, in order to make something follow and give us something to talk about.....but all of the other rules are different, so that..for example...two quantities of two things can yield the sum of five things...is that sufficient condition to call those rules, whatever they are, logical rules?

Quote:Not without them being irrational hypotheticals.

Do you think we disagree on this, or?

You absolutely -can- address such a premise. I did. I informed the op that it was an illogical equivocation, on it;s own merits...even if all of it was true, regardless of whether or not it -can be- true.

(November 6, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Yawn.

That already presupposes the law of identity. Any description of a universe at all has an identity.

-and so what, again.....the op wants a coherent universe, if we place the law of identity there, referent to what occurs in their universe when two quantities of two things yields five quantities of that thing, in order to make something follow and give us something to talk about.....but all of the other rules are different, so that..for example...two quantities of two things can yield the sum of five things...is that sufficient condition to call those rules, whatever they are, logical rules?

Quote:Not without them being irrational hypotheticals.

Do you think we disagree on this, or?

You're missing the implication. It's because you agree on that that you must also realize that you're implicitly agreeing that all hypothetical universes must have the law of identity.

The fact you can't have irrational hypotheticals without them being irrational hypotheticals means all irrational hypotheticals must adhere to the law of identity. Don't give me this "not in this hypothetical universe" crap. You can't even have a hypothetical universe without the law of identity. You can't have anything anywhere, regardless of the universe, without that very "anything anywhere" being anything anywhere. Without A=A.

Rhyhtm Wrote:-and so what, again.....the op wants a coherent universe, if we place the law of identity there, referent to what occurs in their universe when two quantities of two things yields five quantities of that thing,

Such a hypothetical can't be hypothesized.

Quote: in order to make something follow and give us something to talk about.....but all of the other rules are different, so that..for example...two quantities of two things can yield the sum of five things...is that sufficient condition to call those rules, whatever they are, logical rules?

Dude. How many times. You can't have a hypothetical that violates the law of identity and you've already agreed that 2+2=5 violates it.