All of that, Ham, fails to be a strong objection to the point of contention..because as we've seen..the law of identity can be and has been included in the hypothetical with no change to the sum of 2+2.  You think that the law of identity states that 2+2=4, but it doesn't.  It states that what is cannot be what it is and what it is not. 

-In the hypothetical-, 2+2 -is- 5.  If identity holds, in that universe, the sum is 5 and cannot be not 5.  The appeal to identity does not work in the hypothetical, because it's a different universe that can either include or exclude it and it will just be different, but not with regards to itself.  Once OP steps out of the hypothetical, and asks whether or not the rules of that universe (whatever they are) can be called logical.......specifically by reference to a dictionary in this universe, well, then it applies, and then calling it logical is just equivocation..a violation of the law of identity, not any specific instance or state of being to which the law of identity can be applied, such as the product of addition, to the very law itself...which is what you've been angling for all along.

Logic is what it is and cannot be what it is not. If what the op is referring to is not that stuff...the stuff being referenced by that dictionary, it's not logical, no matter what it is, regardless of whether or not it -is-. Not, ultimately that you even need to mount this objection, because more than an issue of illogical propositions..it;s a simple matter of communication. Describing a disparate set of ideas with the very term to which you are distancing those ideas from...above being illogical, is simply counterproductive to communication and understanding. It's a failure to properly word, lol...more than a failure of rational thought.

(November 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 9:03 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I figured it's too late for that. I wouldn't want the confused parties to claim victory for their straw man if they see me "backing out" of bloody 2 + 2 = 5 being a thing somewhere else.

It's never too late if your goal is discussion. You do this well(or try to)  and I'll take your side against anyone who gives you a hard time for it.

I believe the hypothetical is very simple. People need to learn the ability that Rhythm has - to understand a proposition without necessarily accepting it. Without this basic ability, we can't successfully philosophise, as you have seen thus far.

I have to deal with all of my children presenting their funhouse mirror version of what is and what isn't, all day, every day....and bring their irrational asses to some semblence of a rational agreement with me as a matter of course....with the tenous grip I have on mental health hanging in the balance.

I've become accustomed to it, lol.

Whelp, I see Rhythm that you're very hesitant to even acknowledge there's a discussion front regarding the definition of "logical" in our language. I might have a few ideas as to why that is. But putting all that aside, I'm very much reminded of what one of my philosophy teachers once said - all philosophy problems are essentially problems of language. And the more I try and comprehend things, the more that rings true. I don't think either of us can really prove what we're saying, because it's semantics, and semantics is a big issue in philosophy of language.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 8:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If 2 and 2 add to 5, then it's not really 2, and it's not really 5.  It's glooble and glorp.

No, what it is, is a universe like nothing you can imagine. Forget 3-d space, that's for beginner universes. Gravity? Don't need it. This is what you're supposed to get out of "2 + 2 = 5", that this universe is weird. It doesn't run on the same stuff as ours. And that is impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds, so the best I could do was to give an impossible sum and hypothesize it to be true.

I'm perfectly willing to imagine a possible universe which operates on rules different than ours.  I mean, even in our own universe, we have light relativity, photon duality, quantum erasers and so on, which do not work by the logical rules we've grown up taking as rock solid.

But 2+2=5 fails to identity.  If something is really 2, and something is really 5, and "+" means what plus means, then it must work the same across all dimensions.  Otherwise, it's glooble and glorp.

(November 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Whelp, I see Rhythm that you're very hesitant to even acknowledge there's a discussion front regarding the definition of "logical" in our language.

Not at all, amigo, but it won't matter what that discussion is, because if these rules of the hypothetical universe are different from our own rules..as to what logic is, we simply -need- separate terms to discuss them..particularly in their relationship to each other, intelligibly.  

Quote:I might have a few ideas as to why that is. But putting all that aside, I'm very much reminded of what one of my philosophy teachers once said - all philosophy problems are essentially problems of language. And the more I try and comprehend things, the more that rings true. I don't think either of us can really prove what we're saying, because it's semantics, and semantics is a big issue in philosophy of language.

You don't think so, huh? That ground leveling business is the retreat horn of the unintelligible.  When you and I use the term logical, in this universe, it refers to someother other than whatever you might want to use the term to mean in that universe...and if that's not true, then whatever it is in that universe isn't different at all.  We need seperate terms, if they are different. If they are not, we do not...but then, ofc, 2+2 can't be 5...lol. Your insistence in the op was equivocation.

Regarding 2+2=5, enumeration doesn't follow logic, but rather, quantification -- and while the labels assigned to each quantity are arbitrary, the quantity itself is not.

(November 6, 2016 at 9:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm perfectly willing to imagine a possible universe which operates on rules different than ours.  I mean, even in our own universe, we have light relativity, photon duality, quantum erasers and so on, which do not work by the logical rules we've grown up taking as rock solid.

But 2+2=5 fails to identity.

It doesn't.  Two plus two simply -isn't- 5 here, as it is there. It only runs afoul of identity in that in this universe, the sum of 2 and 2 is 4. We're not talking about -this- universe in the hypothetical.

Quote:If something is really 2, and something is really 5, and "+" means what plus means, then it must work the same across all dimensions.

That's rejecting the hypothetical, rejecting difference, not accepting or considering it.  In the other universe, 2+2 -is- 5.  5 is the identity of the sum of that operation, and it cannot be "not 5" - if identity holds in that universe, as it applies to the relationships between quantities as expressed....in that universe, according to those different laws. Not our universe, not our laws. Their universe, their laws.

Quote:Otherwise, it's glooble and glorp.

Some other thing might be gloople and glorp.  2, 5, identity, these can all be the same things in that different universe and yield the sum of 5 -because- those other things are differnt, because of gloople and glorp (whatever they are). I would certainly call the ruleset, even if it included identity alongside gloople and glorp "something other than logical" - but this business about the hypothetical failing to identity, it just doesn't. In a different universe, things would be different. It's a different universe, where, again, 5 just is what you get when you add those quantities together, for whatever reason, as weird as that sounds to us because it doesn't happen here (there's our glorp). Their math would reflect that reality, and the law of identity... if it applied in that universe... would apply to the same.

(November 6, 2016 at 10:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Whelp, I see Rhythm that you're very hesitant to even acknowledge there's a discussion front regarding the definition of "logical" in our language.

Not at all, amigo, but it won't matter what that discussion is, because if these rules of the hypothetical universe are different from our own rules..as to what logic is, we simply -need- separate terms to discuss them..particularly in their relationship to each other, intelligibly.  

Not at all. It's not rocket science. They are both logical systems of thought. Tick. Now let's move forward.

What isn't intelligible is saying goblygoop isn't logical and then wishing to talk about goblygoop. If its axioms don't form a system of logic, like say, making 2 + 2 = 5, then I'm not interested in it. It's not logical and therefore nothing can be said about it.

Quote:

Quote:I might have a few ideas as to why that is. But putting all that aside, I'm very much reminded of what one of my philosophy teachers once said - all philosophy problems are essentially problems of language. And the more I try and comprehend things, the more that rings true. I don't think either of us can really prove what we're saying, because it's semantics, and semantics is a big issue in philosophy of language.

You don't think so, huh? That ground leveling business is the retreat horn of the unintelligible.  When you and I use the term logical, in this universe, it refers to someother other than whatever you might want to use the term to mean in that universe...and if that's not true, then whatever it is in that universe isn't different at all.  We need seperate terms, if they are different. If they are not, we do not...but then, ofc, 2+2 can't be 5...lol. Your insistence in the op was equivocation.

Yes. It's different. The answer isn't 4, but 5. And that ability to produce an answer inherently means its a form of logic, therefore inherently making it logical.

(November 6, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Some other thing might be gloople and glorp.  2, 5, identity, these can all be the same things in that different universe and yield the sum of 5 -because- those other things are differnt, because of gloople and glorp (whatever they are).  I would certainly call the ruleset, even if it included identity alongside gloople and glorp "something other than logical" - but this business about the hypothetical failing to identity, it just doesn't.  In a different universe, things would be different.  It's a different universe, where, again, 5 just is what you get when you add those quantities together, for whatever reason, as weird as that sounds to us because it doesn't happen here (there's our glorp).  Their math would reflect that reality, and the law of identity... if it applied in that universe... would apply to the same.

Then it's not math. It's something else.