(November 6, 2016 at 6:04 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We actually do..  I think it's irrational, unreasonable, meaningless. Nevertheless, it exists.

Hence we don't agree completely on it. So "actually we do" is false.

 
If what we "disagree" on is it's existence, even as it stares you in the face in thread, it's not a matter of disagreement so much as a matter of your slipping sanity.

Quote:I'm not talking about the mentioning of the hypotheticals I'm talking about the use of the hypotheticals. Yes the words of the hypothetical exist in this thread but the hypothetical fails to do what a hypothetical is supposed to do. It's incoherent. You can't have a hypothetical that hypothesizes the nonexistence of all of our logical laws when that includes the law of identity which is already presupposed in the hypothetical because it's presupposed in everything and it's an absolute logical law, it's a logical absolute, not merely one of "our" laws.

Why is incoherent?  Because 2+2=5 in that universe?  That's hardly incoherent, it's just different.  -My- hypothetical invokes a universe with different laws, where 2+2=5.  Is that a logical universe, in your opinion? 

Quote:We don't agree that we both agree. You keep telling me that something can be hypothesized without presupposing the law of identity, but it cant, because something can't be hypothessized without being hypothesized, without A=A.

I keep telling you that identity is irrelevant, to the hypothetical, by proposing it, with the same result, that 2+2=5, and asking you whether or not the ruleset which leads to that being true is logical.  

Quote:Putting the blame on me isn't helpful. This is a two way thing. We're as stubborn as each other and we disagree about agreeing on everything. We disagree that the nature of identity is relevant to hypotheticals.

Who's blaming you?  If I were a smarter guy maybe I'd have hit upon the way to help you get passed the logjam?

Quote:It's not a question of better. It's like, okay you're losing patience, but so what? What is the purpose in the jerk off emoticons? Are you just doing it for your own amusement? I can never understand it when anyone loses patience in a debate. I could argue about everything forever, but when you continue to do so -- it takes two to argue-- you're being just as stubborn as I am, and your losing patience in-between is not my problem. I enjoy every minute of it. If you want time out, say.

The purpose of jerkoff emoticons is the same as the purpose of words and letters to the same effect.  Would you like to piss and moan about that, instead of address the question at hand?  

Quote:We're clearly not going to agree that the law of identity is relevant to all hypotheticals and presupposed in all of them, are we? We're also clearly never going to agree that two things and two things are always four things because it's the same thing or IOW it's based on the law of identity is true in all hypothetical and actual universes, A=A, are we?

You're the only person who says any such thing.  Straw.  Whether or not the law of identity holds in -this- hypothetical is irrelevant to the question asked, as I have explained..at length, multiple times.

Quote:Correction. You mean "Five things" refers to two things and two things, two things and two things are still not five things.

Not here, no, but there, they are.  Take it or leave it.  

Quote:You said that the hypothetical of the OP is right here in this thread, no it isn't, the mentioning of it is. So yes it is relevant. 

No, I haven't, you moron.  I've been arguing against the conclusion desired from this hypothetical for many pages more than this thread has existed. Get your shit together.

Quote:Two things and two things can't be more than two things and two things. 5 things is not more or less then two things and two things then it's 4 things.

In the hypothetical universe two things and two things is five things.  Not that this matters, since the question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not such a universe is possible, but whether or not rules that would lead to such being true -are logical-.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If what we "disagree" on is it's existence, even as it stares you in the face in thread, it's not a matter of disagreement so much as a matter of your slipping sanity.

I've already said that I agree that the hypotehcial is being mentioned in the thread. But it's usage is not there in the thread. Nothing is being successfuly hypothesized. All we've got is a bunch of labels that claim to be hypothesizing something but the hypothetical itself is incoherent. Use/mention distinction.

Again, the hypothetical is simply that some universe exists in which the rules are different, and 2+2=5...but that;s not the subjct of the question anyway, which is simple..whether or not whatever those rules are..which -lead- to 2+2 being 5...and hey, maybe identity is included in that set, are logical.

You're still having an argument with me about nothing. Stop.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why is incoherent?  Because 2+2=5 in that universe?  That's hardly incoherent, it's just different.

If you don't see why two things and two things aren't five things then there's no hope for you. The universe is irrelevant. Two things and two things are not five things. If another thing pops into existence that's just another thing popping into existence, two things and two things are still four things, four things are still four things, five things are still five things, A=A.



If you think any universe can be hypotehsized where A=A then I'm not the one with slipping sanity. Although in all honesty I think you just don't understand the law of identity. A=A is absolute in all universes. It's not about labels, it's absolute in all universes. Those universes don't have to be existent, they can be possible, and hypothetical. A=A applies to everything. It's a logical absolute. It applies to all hypotheticals, yes, it applies to everything.

Quote: -My- hypothetical invokes a universe with different laws, where 2+2=5.  Is that a logical universe, in your opinion? 

No it's not a logical universe, it's not a universe at all, it's not a hypothetical at all, not anything, because for anything to be anything A has to =A.

A hypothetical is something. It's something hypothesized. A=A. applies to that. It applies to everything.

Rhythm, for the last time, all hypotheticals have an identity because the hypothetical's description is itself its identity, the law of identity A=A applies to all hypotheticals because all hypotheticals are themselves. A=A. The truth of this is why the OP is contradicting itself when it attempts to hypothesize a universe without the law of identity.

You need to realize that there are hidden premises, implicit premises, in addition to the explicit ones written within the OP. There are invisible hidden premises that are unwritten that are implied when the OP presupposes certain truths in describing aforementioned premises. You can't have a premise that is not itself. You can't have a premise that doesn't hold to A=A. And because of this, adding explictly the contradictory statement "the law of identity doesn't apply" on top of that invisible unwritten premise that implies the law of identity, creates a contradictory nonsensical premise that may as well be "sagoasjgosagjsao" which means that the concluding question that is based on that is just as nonsensical and may as well be "asofasogfasio" and my answer may as well be "asifkoasfsaofi" And so may as well be yours, and you are deluded to think that the explicit premises in the OP is all that is being said, when A=A is very much presupposed implicitly despite the OP saying otherwise explicitly.

Ok I'm done now. I may change my mind, I hope not. I try too hard to explain why I'm right when it's not going through. Others say I'm like talking to a brick wall, I feel the same way, and Argument Ad Populum doesn't cut it, bub.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: If you don't see why two things and two things aren't five things then there's no hope for you.

OFC I see why two things and two things isn't five things, in this universe.  However, in a universe in which two things plus two things -was- five things..it would be similarly easy to see that it was, in fact, five things.

Quote:The universe is irrelevant.

Obviously not, since at least one difference between our universe and the hypothetical universe is that here, 2+2=4, and there 2+2=5.

Quote:Two things and two things are not five things.

Not here, ofc.  

Quote:If another thing pops into existence that's just another thing popping into existence, two things and two things are still four things, four things are still four things, five things are still five things, A=A.

There is no such thing as four things in a universe where two and two is five.  Their math would reflect that anytime two things are added to two things, you have five things..because that's what happens in their, hyporthetical universe.  Just as our math reflects that adding two things to two things gives you four things.  

Just accept this and move on..so that you can finally speak to the actual question, lol.

Quote:If you think any universe can be hypotehsized where A=A then I'm not the one with slipping sanity.

I didn't propose such a universe, though I allowed that a hypothetical world in which our rules don;t apply -could be-.  In my universe, I explicitly appealed to identity, and the identity of the sum of two plus two..in that universe, is five.  Not four.  Five.  Even if the law of identity holds in that universe, 2+2=5. That's just how that universe is, in the hypothetical.

Quote:Although in all honesty I think you just don't understand the law of identity. A=A is absolute in all universes. It's not about labels, it's absolute in all universes. Those universes don't have to be existent, they can be possible, and hypothetical. A=A applies to everything. It's a logical absolute. It applies to all hypotheticals, yes, it applies to everything.

-that's nce, but since you and I agree, and since my example agrees....so what?  

Quote:You need to realize that there are hidden premises, implicit premises, in addition to the explicit ones written within the OP.

There's nothing hidden in my example.  2+2=5, in the hypothetical universe.  Are the rules that would lead to this being true logical rules?

The universality of the law of identity, Ham, is irrelevant. Propose the question without it, and the question is what it is. Propose the question with it, and it's still the same question. Argue, endlessly, about the universality of identity....with people who agree with you on that count, no less... and you aren't even discussing the question.

A=A is true in all universes. You can't hypothesize your way out of that. I'm sorry, you just can't. You can't have a hypothetical that isn't itself. 2+2=4 because of the law of identity. I'm talking in base 10. If you want to talk another base, that's fine. But then whatever is true for that base is true for that base. If you're talking about a base in a different universe, then you're discussing a concept and a different language rather than different laws. I'm using our language, base 10, to explain to you that 2+2=4 regardless of what label or base is used in another universe. You're simply mistaken to think an extra thing popping into existence has anything to do with it. Two objects. Two more objects. Same thing as four objects. Yes in this universe. In another universe, that amount, would have to be that amount, it can't be 5. You can label it 5, but it can't be 5. An extra thing popping into existence, is irrelevant. Two things and two things is identical to four things, it's not two things and two things plus nothing popping into existence. Likewise, two things and two things equating to five things would have to be something equating to something it isn't, not something equating to something it is +1 more thing popping into existence. You really don't get it, you really don't get it, you really really don't get it. A=A is everywhere, it doesn't matter what mathematical language or concept it is, all of them have in common the law of identity, A=A. If we're talking about four things in the sense we understand it, in our language, then in another universe the results would be the same: four things in the sense we mean would be four things in the sense we mean, or two things in the sense we mean plus two things in the sense we mean would be four things in the sense we mean. There's no sense in which we mean in which two things and two things mean five things. In the language of another universe what would it mean? Irrelevant, again, we're not talking about other languages. We're using OUR language to describe laws in other universes, and we can't describe laws in other universes in our language in which A=not A or 2+2=5. We can mention such things, but we can't actually successfuly describe such things, all we can do is label. The important thing is to really understand why 2+2=4 in base 10 BECAUSE A=A. And to also understand that A=A is presupposed in everything, all hypotheticals, all non-hypotheticals, all potentialities, all non-potentialites, all possibilites, all impossibilites, all realities, all unrealites all universes, all non-universes, all descriptions. All descriptions are descriptions that are themselves. It's a tautology. You can't have a tautology without A=A. You can't have a tautology that says "if A did not =A then A would not =A" because that itself, as a tautology, is an expression of "A=A". "If A was not A it would not be A" because something is what it is, if it is it it is it, because A=A. You're saying the premise is a tautology that describes a hypothetical without the truth of A=A, but the fact it is a tautology at all implies that it is a tautology, which is another expression of A=A. A=A is the simplest expression of the truth of why all tautologies are true. You can't have a tautological premise that describes A not being A without presupposing that A is A. You can't have the law of non-contradiction without the law of identity.

(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. 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.

THINGS could have multiple identities, in a sense. For example, you could argue that every subatomic particle in the universe of type X, being completely indistinguishable from all the others, is really the same particle. Or you could look at how a photon can be identified as either a wave or a particle or both. You could even conceive of a universe in which whenever you combine 2 particles, a third "ghost" particle is by some physical rule summoned from the ether, and whenever you separate them, it disappears.


However, NUMBERS must be distributable-- if you have 10 things, and divide them into two even groups, you MUST have 5 + 5. If this is not true, then you are in a universe in which numbers are meaningless. In other words, you don't have DIFFERENT math, you have a lack of it. So you could never have a universe in which 2 + 2 = 5. You could only have a universe in which numbers have no meaning.

2+2=4 because the law of identity, as it applies to the relationships between quantities -in this universe- states that it must be 4. That's what it is, and it cannot be what it is, and what it is not.

 We're talking about a different universe, where the law of identity, if it held there to begin with, as it applied to the relationships between quantities in -that- universe would describe a different value...because it's a different universe. where 2+2=5, and in that universe, it -is- 5, and cannot be 4, because 4 is what it is not.

If there were such a universe, where that were true, would it make sense to call it a logical universe?

(November 5, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: No, two things and two things can't possibly be five things in ANY universe. For the same reason that there can be no square circles or ummarried batchelors in ANY universe. 2+2 doesn't equate to 4 because it's this universe... 2+2=4 is a tautology. Two things and two things are four things because two things and two things is THE SAME THING as four things.

What universe it is or what concept of logic we're talking about is completely irrelevant. 2+2=4 is a logical and mathematical absolute fact like The Law Of Identity is and it's not dependent even remotely on humans or their brains. If you disagree that 2+2=4 then you're not actually talking about 2+2 or 4. The truth of two things and two things being the same thing as four things is an absolute truth everywhere BECAUSE it's the same thing as saying two things  and two things are two things and two things or four things are four things or A=A. It's the Law of Identity and there is no possible universe that can evade the Law of Identity, nothing can. It's a logical impossibility and logic is more than just a concept. Anything that contradicts the law of identity is a logical impossibility regardless of whether humans exist to conceptualize the Law of Identity.

Here's an example of why the Law of Identity can't possibly be defeated and why 2+2=4 in every possible universe:

If the law of identity was not true in any universe it would be not true in the universes that it wasn't true of and that itself is dependent on the law of identity. The truth of not A=not A is dependent on the truth of A=A. It's inescapable.

Here's an example of why the law of identity is not only true in all universes but is true even if humans don't exist to conceptualize it:

It is true by virtue of the law of identity that if humans didn't exist to conceptualize the law of identity they wouldn't exist to conceptualize the law of identity.

Whatever is, is. That is true regardless of what universe we are talking about regardless of if someone can conceptualize it.

Bye for now.

(November 6, 2016 at 7:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 2+2=4 because the law of identity, as it applies to the relationships between quantities -in this universe-

The law of identity isn't universe-dependent. Nor is it hypothetical dependent. Everything else depends on the law of identity, not the other way around. Sorry BZZZZT try again.