On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

If they're logical rules they're not "another set" of rules, they're the same set of rules.  OFC, then, 2+2 could not equal 5, in that other universe.  Oh well.

Have you avoided the OP on purpose? 2 + 2 = 5 for them, and for them to arrive at their conclusion, they are applying something defined by 1C i.e. logic, formerly known as goblygoop so that we don't confuse it with our understanding of 2 + 2. It's simple Rhythm.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, our logic does not apply. In this hypothetical, it's the formal laws of goblygoop.

Which make those rules goblygoopal, not logical, logic doesn't apply.  The end.

Incorrect. The OP contains the simple answer to why it is logical. Since this hypothetical universe has its own way of functioning, it means that it will have its own way for beings to ponder their universe, and such a construct is what we call "LOGIC" - a formal set of axioms by which one can reason. Thus, there can be such a thing as 'logical' in that universe, including of course their logic itself - goblygoop.

Same old equivocation as the last thread. I don't know if that's a problem under the formal rules of goblygoop, maybe it isn't...but for reference, are you trying to have a logical or goblygoopal discussion, here, in this universe? Because...if it's the latter, I'd like to revise my response to "cheesecake".

[FallentoReason]

Universes can't evade logic.

No, they cannot. I completely agree. However, our hypothetical *isn't* evading logic. Its mere existence evokes *another* set of axioms by which it functions, rendering our logic obsolete *only if* you want to rationalise their conclusions such as 2 + 2 = 5. This *cannot* show if goblygoop (their logic) is logical or not.

[FallentoReason]

Yes, our logic does not apply. In this hypothetical, it's the formal laws of goblygoop.

Which make those rules goblygoopal, not logical, logic doesn't apply.  The end.

Incorrect. The OP contains the simple answer to why it is logical. Since this hypothetical universe has its own way of functioning, it means that it will have its own way for beings to ponder their universe, and such a construct is what we call "LOGIC" - a formal set of axioms by which one can reason. Thus, there can be such a thing as 'logical' in that universe, including of course their logic itself - goblygoop.

Same old equivocation as the last thread.  I don't know if that's a problem under the formal rules of goblygoop, maybe it isn't...but for reference, are you trying to have a logical or goblygoopal discussion, here, in this universe?  Because...if it;s the latter, I'd like to revise my response to "cheesecake".

Your entire argument goes as follows:

Apples cannot be red. Only red is red. The end.

[The Grand Nudger]

Straw.  Apples cannot be oranges, more like.  Both might be fruit, but that won't change that one is not the other.

You're the one whose explicitly told us that they aren't the same thing. Own it or let it go. Goblygoop is goblygoopal, logic is logical. Unless they're the same thing..which you've said they aren't, then goblygoop is not logical, and logic is not goblygoopal, regardless of their both being sets of rules. Jut like Fred is not Bobal, and Bob is not Fredal...even if they're both human beings.

[FallentoReason]

Straw.  Apples cannot be oranges, more like.  Both might be fruit, but that won't change that one is not the other.

lololol. Care to call apples 'Bob' and oranges 'Fred'? Or is that too close for comfort?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, we can do that, it won't change the argument, or why you're wrong on the face of it.  Bob is not Fred, and Fred is not Bob. If you could L2word...you'd know that Bob is Bobal(ish), and Fred is Fredal(ish), Bob is not Fredal(ish), and Fred is not Bobal(ish)....even if they're both -human-. 

But you aren't any better at words than you are at reason, so here we are.

[FallentoReason]

I can see you making your changes in order to seemingly preempt my posted reply, you know.

And what rubbish is this, 'bobal' and 'fredal'? It's very simple Rhythm. Both our logic and goblygoop are formal sets of axioms. Any such set is therefore logical in its own right. Don't bother with your cute 'goblygoopal', 'bobal', 'fredal' rubbish. We know what you're saying, that 'goblygoopal' needs to be understood as 'logical', otherwise it would be a silly play on words.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually I did pre-empt it, nubbins.  I was typing at the same time you were, lol.  You're just repeating the contents of the last thread, what do you expect?  

They may both be formal sets of axioms, but one is not the other - and this much you repeatedly insist, and so, to insist that they are not equivalent and then call one as though it were the other based upon equivocation is both illogical, and demonstrative of a poor grasp of the english language.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can, if you like, repeat this exercise with any set of nouns and adjectives you like.  

Bob is american, Fred is french.  They are both human.  Does this mean that it would be proper to consider Fred americanish, or Bob frenchish?