On Logic and Alternate Universes

[vorlon13]

I'm more interested in the alternate universe where Mormonism is true.

[Alex K]

I'm more interested in the alternate universe where Mormonism is true.

It would be interesting if alone for the fact that we'd get planets. Also, a universe where Joe Smith's tall tales are actually true, that has got to be an interesting one. If I have the choice between weird alternate cult universes, I don't know whether I'd prefer planets or body thetans though

[GrandizerII]

You have nothing but your imagination going for you.

Why are we discussing this. I know it's hypothetical, that doesn't mean you've showed that what you're talking about is possible in principle. It's a bunch of crazy statements so far backed up by nothing but your own wishful thinking, seems like.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the topic warrants such inflammatory responses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Were you around for the last 15 pages of asshattery about the same thing, before op flew off like the pigeon it is to make a new thread about it...due to it's laughable failure in that other thread? This is an attempt to scrub the baggage of that thread, op got tired of being quoted and held to it's statements.

Soooo, lets start all over again. OFC there could be some alternate universe where 2+2=5, if things were different, things would be different. There's no reason to wonder what the terms mean, or how it would come about to be so. It;s a hypothetical universe, it can hypothetically be however the imaginer wants it to be, particularly since it's a universe where logic doesn't apply, a universe with different rules.

What it can't be, if the imaginer wants it to be a universe with different rules, where logic doesn't apply...is logical.

[Alex K]

Were you around for the last 15 pages of asshattery about the same thing, before op flew off like the pigeon it is to make a new thread about it...due to it's laughable failure in that other thread? This is an attempt to scrub the baggage of that thread, op got tired of being quoted and held to it's statements.

Soooo, lets start all over again. OFC there could be some alternate universe where 2+2=5, if things were different, things would be different. There's no reason to wonder what the terms mean, or how it would come about to be so. It;s a hypothetical universe, it can hypothetically be however the imaginer wants it to be, particularly since it's a universe where logic doesn't apply. What it can't be, if the imaginer wants it to be a universe where logic doesn't apply...is logical.

"In a hypothetical universe anything is possible, so we don't even need to define terms" is the least interesting treatment of the question I can imagine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey, it's not my fault, the hypothetical explicitly states that it's a universe with different rules.  How could we, using our rules, say that 2+2=5 cant be true in a universe that -doesn;t- use our rules?

In that universe...2+2, as we define both two and plus, could equal 5, as we define five. It sounds ridiculous to us, sure, but this universe doesn't operate on our rules, it's not a logical universe.

The treatment is uninteresting because the question is uninteresting, lol. If things were different, things would be different.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ FallenToReason

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The law of identity is a logical law, this hypothetical alternate universe does not operate on those principles. Referencing what is impossible if logical laws hold, does not speak to what is impossible if they do not.

[Alex K]

@Alasdair

I don't quite follow. Are you defining 4 as the sum of 2 and 2?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ 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.