2 + 2 = 11 actually.

10 + 10 = 100 actually

(November 6, 2016 at 10:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(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.

It's not -our- math...that accords itself to the relationships between quantities as that's expressed in -our- universe, no, but that's completely besides the point, isn't it..because we aren't talking about our math -or- our universe. 

Different universe, different relationships between quantities.  Their math would reflect those differences, or be wrong with respect to their universe.  In their universe, for whatever reason (glorp), when two quantities of something are added o two quantities of something, you have five quantities of something.  I don't know how that happens, because I don;t know what glorp is, I don;t live in that universe, I have no evidence from that universe to appeal to or explain it by, but I don't -have- to know what glorp is to accept that this is how those relationships play out in their hypothetical universe.  That's one of the things that's different, about this different universe with different rules. Refusing to accept that is -not- accepting the hypothetical, it;s simply refusing to consider it. I've accepted it, I've considered it, and ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not such a universe is possible or exists, or that 2=2 really does equal 5 in that universe....there's no reason to call whatever rules make that true logical, and every reason to call them something else...and that, that and only that, was the question asked, the point of contention.

@Fallen.  
There you go again, referring to this other set of rules by the term we use to refer to the set of rules that you have decided to distance them from.  I can't know which set of rules you're even talking about if you use the same terms for both.

The ability to produce an answer doesn't make something logic or logical. Now you;ve gone from equivocation to complete non-sequitur. There are plenty of illogical things that can produce answers all day long. I have four of them living in my house producing endless answers to any question you might care to ask...most of which are entirely untrue but sometimes...just sometimes, they get one right on accident. My daughter, just a few nights ago, informed that the moon moved because it was falling. Well I'll be damned, she's right...but not because of any logical reason - in fact her reasons were completely out of left field and nevertheless she correctly identified what it means for something to be in orbit.

Similarly, 2+2=5, in that hypothetical universe, is an answer...particularly to what the sum of two plus two is....but it's not a -logical- one, even if it's right. It's a glorpical one, or a goblygoopal one...it's true because of some rule that's -different- from the rules we are referring to when we use the term logic here.

2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

If I'm not misunderstanding FtR, he's suggesting that their is some descriptive characteristic of logic in our universe that couldn't equally be descriptive of a system in another universe wherein things that don't make sense in our system do in theirs and vice versa. This would be the assumption that there is an essence to 'logic' independent of the specific laws of logic enumerated. If I understand correctly, he's asking what makes logic 'logic'? I don't personally think there is an essence of logic which would be equally applicable to a different system in another universe, but I don't 'know' that. I'm not even sure that I understand FtR's point.

(November 6, 2016 at 8:35 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 7:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 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.

Could it be possible for two universes to not be metaphysically connected? That they are so far apart that no real causal connection exists between them. Otherwise what would it mean for there to be "multiple" universes? Isn't it still just one, bigger universe then?

I would say no; there cannot be two versions of the set that includes everything that is, was, or ever could be. In a sense the word Multiverse is deceptive since it encompasses the prior concept of universe as everything. The Cosmos. The All. Multiverse is just a modern way of conceptualizing a larger universe that has within in many local pockets of possibly alternative forces and physical constants - all subject to overarching absolute rules. So instead of Multiverse I chose the term reality since that seems to best convey all inclusiveness.

(November 6, 2016 at 10:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

I disagree that it doesn't follow logic because the way I see it math is just logic with numbers and logic is just math with words, 2+2=4 in the same way that all bachelors are unmarried.

I think enumeration follows both logic and quantification, in the sense that mathematics is logical and enumeration is a subset of mathematics: But other than that I agree 100%. You're absolutely 100% correct when you say "while the labels assigned to each quantity are arbitrary, the quantity itself is not." This is why 2+2 can never equal 5, because two things and two things simply are not 5 things. It can be labelled to be 5 things but it can't actually be 5 things. When someone says "Oh but in this hypothetical universe an extra thing pops into existence when you add two and two together" that doesn't cut it; it's not the same thing.

So we may disagree on one small detail there, in the sense that I think mathematics and logic are both forms of logic, one is just with numbers and the other with words, but other than that it seems we agree 100% here.

(November 7, 2016 at 1:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.  

IOW 2+2=5 if you redefine "2" to mean "2.5", IOW if you play silly buggers and change the labelling...

...but it still hasn't changed the absolute logically mathematical fact that two things and two things is the same quantity and is identical to four things, it has the same identity under a different label, whereas five things is more than that

(November 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: @ Alex

No. 2 things and 2 things is the same thing as 4 things. 2 and 2 is the same as 4. 3 and 1 is also the same as 4.

@ Rhythm

You're talking about the concept of the law of identity rather than the law itself. The law itself is absolute. The fact that something is what it is is true regardless of whether we conceptualize that.

Regardless of what the other universes are: Whatever they are they will be whatever they are. That's the law of identity and that is true whether we exist to conceptualize it, or other beings exist in other universes to conceptualize it or not. It would be true even if no beings existed in any universe at all and if there was no such thing as concepts. Concepts don't have to exist for the absolute fact that we refer to when we conceptualize them to be true.

If no beings existed to conceptualize the law of identity at all it would be true by virtue of the truth of the law of identity (as opposed to the existence of the concept itself) and what it refers to (that something is what it is) that no beings would exist to conceptualize the law of identity. There would be no concept of the law of identity, no minds to speak of or refer to the law of identity... but it would still be the case that that was the case.

And no minds have to exist to say "two things and two things is the same as four things" for two things and two things to be the same as four things. 2+2 is 4 is the same in all universes. 2+2=4 is as absolute as 1=1 or A=A. You don't need to conceptualize the truth of what the concepts of those things refer to for the things that they refer to to be true.

I explained this rather well I think

The Law of Identity is an absolute logical law that everything else has to apply to: Things have to be themselves; otherwise those things don't exist. A=A otherwise there is no A. What universe it is or even whether it's hypothetical or not, is irrelevant. Even when you're hypothesizing you have to at least be hypothesizing. A has to=A. You can mention "2+2=5" but that's just labelling, you can't actually actively hypothesize such a thing: such a thing is as unconceptualizable as a square circle is. We can conceptualize the words "square circle" or we can write the symbols "2+2=5" but we can't actually conceptualize--or hypothesize--square circles or two things and two things being five things; this is why the use/mention distinction is important.

The act of hypothesizing itself exists in reality just like everything else does. Our imagination exists in our brain, whether we can imagine something or not is something we do and what we do is relevant to what exists (everything/ every thing (which is what "everything" is) is relevant to what exists; ontology is more fundamental than epistemology. You can't have a proper theory of knowledge without a proper theory of truth and you can't have a proper theory of truth without a proper theory of existence and reality)... we can't imagine the unimaginable, we can't hypothesize the unhypothezizable, we can't suppose the unsupposable, we can write down the words "if there were square circles there would be square circles" or "if 2+2 was 5 then it would be 5" but it's not something we can actually conceptualize or hypothesize, all we're conceptualizing and hypothesizing is a tautology and a bunch of words. It's not even possible to hypothesize or imagine such a tautology without obeying the law of identity because all tautologies are based on the law of identity--A=A. The fact we can say "if X then Y" doesn't mean we've actually hypotheszied or conceived of "if X then Y".... it actually has to have a meaning. "If there were square circles then there would be square circles" or "if 2+2=5 then 2+2=5" is completely meaningless. It's basically saying "If something impossible was not impossible then it wouldn't be impossible but it is impossible but still if it wasn't it wouldn't be." It's just talking in circles and complete nonsense. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a hypothetical it's a string of words attempting a hypothetical and failing. You can't even violate the law of identity if you try... because even when you say "If the law of identity was impossible then the law of identity would be impossible" that's an expression of "if A was A then A would be A" where "A" represents the impossibility of the law of identity... but why would A be A if A was A? Because of the truth of the law of identity, because A=A. So even a tautological attempt to hypotehsize the non-truth of the law of identity, even an attempt to create a hypothetical tautology where it's impossible fails to do so because that tautology itself, like all tautologies, is just another expression of A=A, it's just another expression of the law of identity itself.

You're still ignoring that in a universe with -different laws-...that's the hypothetical, the hypothetical completely evades your insistence by default..it doesn't have to hold....and that even if it does hold, it will still be referent to whatever -is- in a universe that is different.  If, as has been repeatedly explained to you, despite your inability to comprehend how it might be and despit the fact that it is not such here, the identity of the sum of 2+2 -is- 5 in that universe...then the law of identity holding in that universe gives us a sum of 5, not 4, 5.  Always 5, never not 5. Not as a matter of relabeling what we mean by the numbers, not as a matter of relabeling what we mean by the operation - that -is- what happens, there..that -is- the relationship between quantities...there. That it conflicts with the relationship here is a complete non-issue, ofc it does, it's a -different- universe.

None of these logical laws exist in a vacuum, and by themselves they are meaningless. That's why you can't say, for example, that the law of identity states that 2+2=4. It does';t. The law of identity, -combined- with laws governing the relationships between quantities..means that 2+2=4. Change the latter, and you could change what identity refers to. They exist in reference to each other and by way of describing relationships to truth. Which is the OP's entire point. If truth were different, elsewhere, wouldn;t the rules governing how we arrive at truth be different? If that were the case, would "their logic" be different from "our logic"...and still -be- logical?