'm just talking about a universe whose math reflects the relationships observed in their universe..just as ours reflects the relationships we see here.  It;s different math, with respect to -our- math it;s bad math.....but it's their math, nevertheless, and accurately decribes the relationship between quantities as those relationships express themselves in their universe...because their universe is..wait for it...different.

Do you think that it would be sensible or useful to describe the rules which would lead to 2+2 being 5 as logical..or would you, instead, think such rules would deserve their own term?

Correct Bennyboy. Dweeble dobble indeed hence the "jsagosagjasgosa"

Thanks for making me feel understood. It indeed wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 makes as little sense as there being square circles. And anyone who tells me that there can be a universe where 2+2=5, in the same sense we mean it, and that it would have that identity and not just be labelled differently or in another language, is talking out of their arse as much as anyone who says that square circles can be in other universes, even hypotheticals. "If square circles existed then square circles would exist", sorry, failed hypothetical, you just said the equivalent of "If something that was logically impossible was not logically impossible then it would not logically be impossible" or "if A was not A then it would not be A", but that makes no sense because there's not even a hypothetical where "A" could be "not A" there is not "If A could not be A", the very fact there's an "if" at all presupposes "if=if" or "A=A".

It's like saying if something was nothing it would be nothing, well, no, nothing can't be. "A" represents "something". "Circles" represents "circles", "squares" represents "squares", "square circles" represents nothing. Nonexistence cannot be represented. It's nothing more than a word for that which cannot be represented. There is "nothing" but there isn't nothing. There isn't even hypothetically a nothing. There's only hypothetically, and actually, a "nothing". You can label or mention, "Nothing", "not A" or "square circles", but you can't even imagine nothing, not A or square circles, such things don't even exist as hypotheticals. So there (same goes for 2+2=5 and for the same reasons... theres "2+2=5" but there isn't 2+2=5. There's "nothing" or "square circles" but there isn't nothing or square circles. Use/mention distinction).

No one's having any trouble understanding you Ham, lol.

Sureeeeeeeeee

So can 2+2=5 be a hypothhetical or not? If you understand that it can't then you understand me, if not, not. See my sig.

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 such a universe did exist, wherein such laws as would be necessary (including identity, identity identity identity) were in effect, would it be sensible or useful to call those laws logical, or would they deserve their own term?

Say.... nonsense, or bullshit, or goblygoop?

(November 6, 2016 at 7:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you think that it would be sensible or useful to describe the rules which would lead to 2+2 being 5 as logical..

Can't be done. Can't even by hypothesized. Can only be mentioned or labelled that way.

Quote:or would you, instead, think such rules would deserve their own term?

Such rules couldn't exist to be given another term. And if there could? There isn't even any "if there could" about it, that's the whole point. If they could then there would be a logical contradiction which would mean they couldn't. 2+2=5 ultimately violates the law of identity which means 2+2=not 5.

If there were other logical mathematical logical laws they certainly wouldn't be any logical or mathematical laws that violate the law of identity, like 2+2=5 or any other of the bullshit mentioned in the OP/failed to be hypothesized in the OP without presupposing the law of identity and thereby contradicting the hypothesis itself which is what I mean by failed to be hypothesized.

As has already been explained to you, including the law of identitity does not mean that the rest of the laws involved could not be different.  A different universe -can be- different, even if there are some similarities.  Such as, for example, the law of identity held, and in that universe, because of the differences of -other- laws, the identity of the sum of 2+2....was 5.

Obviously such a universe can by hypothesized, I just did it.

So, again.

If such a universe existed.  If such laws existed in that universe as to make such a thing true (which have been proposed...the goggdidit magical popping into existence of a 5th thing when two things are added to two things) would it make sense or be useful to call such rules logical, or would they deserve their own term?

Whether or not such rules do exist, or can exist, by reference to what we call logic..irrelevant Ham. Completely irrelevant. Not what you're being asked. It's just a thought experiment. 2+2=5 -does not- violate the law of identity, it violates the law of identity -as it relates to quantities and their relationships..in this universe....but we're talking about a different universe, capiche? It is, in my example, an explicit assumption of the law of identty as it relates to the relationships between quantities -in that universe-. Obviously, something must be different, bewteen here and there, since the answer is 4 here, and 5 there. What's -not- different, is the law of identity itself.

So try, try really hard, not to bicker again, over that...

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.

Our universe would be a little enclave of logic within a larger, absurd, reality.  I don't think that's true, but hey, it's not something I can discount.  The greater reality being absurd would't suddenly cause logic not to work here, so I couldn't personally sign onboard with the all or nothing hypothesis.

In that larger "greater reality" our little chunk has some rules which we refer to as logical.  If, in some other chunk, some other set of rules existed, such that 2+2=5....would it be sensible or useful to call those rules logical rules?