On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

Actually I did pre-empt it, nubbins.  I was typing at the same time you were, lol.

I saw your post updating with more and more sentences after I had posted. No matter, it's not important either way.

They may both be formal sets of axioms,

Yes.

but one is not the other,

Yes.

and to insist that they are not equvalent and then call one as though it were the other

No. I've never done that. Apples are not oranges. Bob is not Fred. Our logic is not that of goblygoop. To call one as the other would be to say that our logic = goblygoop. I have not done that. I don't care about identity. I care about the class of thing that they are. Just like we can identify that Bob/Fred have arms and legs, we can therefore conclude they are of the class 'human'. Exactly the same with sets of axioms. They are of the class 'logic'. Call them whatever the hell you want. Boppity and goblygoop. And whenever we spot their attributes (i.e. one being they are a set of axioms) we can then say 'ah, it's not a tricycle, it's not a dinosaur, it's logic'. And one inherent definition of sets of axioms is that they are in fact logical, whether it be boppity, goblygoop blah blah blah.

is both illogical, and demonstrative of a poor grasp of the english language.

You're warping the english language nonsensically.

[The Grand Nudger]

No. I've never done that.

-guess it's time to start quoting you again.

It doesn't matter what they mean in our 3-d universe, because I'm interested in the incomprehensible meaning that another universe with another set of logical rules would have, and if that meaning can actually be said to be "logical", which in the OP I have shown it is.

What haven't you said, again....and of course you tried so hard to ditch the many, many times you said it in the last thread only to fuck up again, huh.  

 I don't care about identity.

Clearly, and that's the problem.

I care about the class of thing that they are.

Then call goblygoop axiomish, since it's the class of thing that concerns you...or just, idk.."a set of axioms"?  It's not logical, that's reserved for another set of axioms, logical ones.  In addition to identity, you don't care about equivocation or false equivalencies... yet again, the problem. If you want these things to be different, if you must insist that they are different, then allow them to be different, ffs.

[theologian]

For OP:

---

Let's first define what we mean by "logic" [1].
  

logic
play
noun  log·ic \ˈlä-jik\
Popularity: Top 10% of words
Simple Definition of logic

• [b]A:[/b] a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
  
  
• [b]B:[/b] a particular way of thinking about something
  
  
• [b]C:[/b] the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
  

if we have a look at 1C, we can see that logic can be said to be a formal set of axioms by which we do our thinking and reasoning. The name we give to the logic of this universe is conveniently "logic". 

Let's look at "logical" [2].

logical
play
adjective  log·i·cal \ˈlä-ji-kəl\
Popularity: Top 40% of words
Simple Definition of logical

• [b]A:[/b] agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable
  
  
• [b]B:[/b] of or relating to the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
  

Now, let's hypothesize about an alternate universe. This universe would have its own logic (1C - ...the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.) by which beings would reason within this universe, and for the sake of convenience, let's call it "goblygoop". Let's also give goblygoop a new entry: according to goblygoop, 2 + 2 = 5 is actually true. 

Now, the question is, "is goblygoop logical?". Initially it seems like it isn't, because according to 2A goblygoop needs to agree to the rules of 'logic' (our logic in this universe), which it doesn't. But obviously, that answer is relative to this universe. We can see that goblygoop does in fact conform with 2B, since goblygoop is the way in which thinking and reasoning would work in that universe. Therefore, goblygoop is a form of logic (1C) and it can be said to be logical (2B).




The list of "inb4's"

"But 2 + 2 = 5 is not true! Don't you know that it's 4?" - yes, according to our conditioned mind in this universe, that is the answer. But it won't be the same answer in goblygoop. 

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion. 2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe. The mere roll of the dice made it so.

"But you're using our logic to prove their logic!" - no, my aim isn't to prove any of their axioms. I'm simply saying that an arbitrary set of axioms can by all accounts be considered "logical", even if that logic won't make sense here. It's all relative to the universe you're in.


EDIT: for the purposes of polling you guys, give kudos if you agree, or comment if you disagree.

---

I think this is what we can get when we give too much credit to logic over metaphysics. We can arrive at anything by using logic alone, even if we arrive at something absurd or something non-real, while metaphysics is to deal with reality and must be supposed in every logic in order to arrive at real conclusion. Hence classical philosophy which gives priority to metaphysics and which arrives to conclusion that God exists is more superior than the modern philosophy which relies on logic alone and that which can conclude that there is no God in a non-real way.

[FallentoReason]

No. I've never done that.

-guess it's time to start quoting you again.

It doesn't matter what they mean in our 3-d universe, because I'm interested in the incomprehensible meaning that another universe with another set of logical rules would have, and if that meaning can actually be said to be "logical", which in the OP I have shown it is.

What haven't you said, again....and of course you tried so hard to ditch the many, many times you said it in the last thread only to fuck up again, huh.  

 I don't care about identity.

Clearly, and that's the problem.

I care about the class of thing that they are.

Then call goblygoop axiomish, since it's the class of thing that concerns you...or just, idk.."a set of axioms"?  It's not logical, that's reserved for another set of axioms, logical ones.  In addition to identity, you don't care about equivocation or false equivalencies... yet again, the problem.  If you want these things to be different, if you must insist that they are different, then allow them to be different, ffs.

Your entire argument is uninteresting, because it's a triviality of the english language. Look I can play your game too:

Bicycles are bicycly
oranges are orangy
toast is toasty

They mean absolutely nothing. 

The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

[FallentoReason]

For OP:

---

Let's first define what we mean by "logic" [1].
  

if we have a look at 1C, we can see that logic can be said to be a formal set of axioms by which we do our thinking and reasoning. The name we give to the logic of this universe is conveniently "logic". 

Let's look at "logical" [2].


Now, let's hypothesize about an alternate universe. This universe would have its own logic (1C - ...the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.) by which beings would reason within this universe, and for the sake of convenience, let's call it "goblygoop". Let's also give goblygoop a new entry: according to goblygoop, 2 + 2 = 5 is actually true. 

Now, the question is, "is goblygoop logical?". Initially it seems like it isn't, because according to 2A goblygoop needs to agree to the rules of 'logic' (our logic in this universe), which it doesn't. But obviously, that answer is relative to this universe. We can see that goblygoop does in fact conform with 2B, since goblygoop is the way in which thinking and reasoning would work in that universe. Therefore, goblygoop is a form of logic (1C) and it can be said to be logical (2B).




The list of "inb4's"

"But 2 + 2 = 5 is not true! Don't you know that it's 4?" - yes, according to our conditioned mind in this universe, that is the answer. But it won't be the same answer in goblygoop. 

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion. 2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe. The mere roll of the dice made it so.

"But you're using our logic to prove their logic!" - no, my aim isn't to prove any of their axioms. I'm simply saying that an arbitrary set of axioms can by all accounts be considered "logical", even if that logic won't make sense here. It's all relative to the universe you're in.


EDIT: for the purposes of polling you guys, give kudos if you agree, or comment if you disagree.

---

I think this is what we can get when we give too much credit to logic over metaphysics. We can arrive at anything by using logic alone, even if we arrive at something absurd or something non-real, while metaphysics is to deal with reality and must be supposed in every logic in order to arrive at real conclusion. Hence classical philosophy which gives priority to metaphysics and which arrives to conclusion that God exists is more superior than the modern philosophy which relies on logic alone and that which can conclude that there is no God in a non-real way.

We use non-real things all the time in order to conduct our examinations. They're called thought experiments, which can enlighten us about metaphysics. Consider the train thought experiment where you can either save 1 or 5 people from being run over. But here's the thing - even though we can use something that is on the brink of being real, the thing being analysed might *not* be. There are such people who think morality is metaphysically meaningless i.e. non-existent. The only way to find out is to, in some ways, go beyond what we know to be real.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your entire argument is uninteresting, because it's a triviality of the english language. Look I can play your game too:

Bicycles are bicycly
oranges are orangy
toast is toasty

They mean absolutely nothing. 

As does the statement "goblygoop is logical".   You have explicitly imagined a system that is -different-...and then described it with the term used for the very system you distanced it from.  Let it be different, then it might be meaningful...maybe even interesting. As long as goblygoop is logical..it's just fucking logic fallen, it's not different, it's the same - and 2+2=4, not 5. It's no fault of mine that you hinged this whole thing on an equivocation..which is just another way of saying that you hinged it upon a triviality of language.

The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

Uninteresting shit is uninteresting.  You could have just moved on, we've agreed that if things were different they would be different.  I'm even willing to entertain the notion that an alternate universe may have alternate rules.  But no, no, you had to make another thread and peddle the same shit over an uninteresting bit of idiocy, cheifly becaus you neither understand nor care for identity, or a host of other logical rules which help us to -have- informative..interesting, rational discussions.

-If- there were another universe, with another set of rules, that would be interesting. What would those rules look like? What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be? How might it be, in that universe, that 2 and 2 yielded 5? Maybe...in that universe, when you combined 2 of something with 2 of something, an extra something popped into existence. If that were the case, then their math would likely reflect that. Afer all, this ath, these logical rules, they're all, ultimately, based in observations of our universe. With respect to how we see math, a problem arises in such a system, in that some mathematical operations could yield more than one value. A sort of indeterminancy at points. I think that this would make some things more difficult for whatever species tried to use it the way we use ours.

[FallentoReason]

You have explicitly imagined a system that is -different-...and then described it with the term used for the very system you distanced it from

Wrong, because

The discussion at hand just so happens to have a noun which is also an adjective. Your use of it, however, is completely uninteresting. And you've shown that already with other examples such as 'bobly' and 'fredly'. Completely void of any meaning, because yes, we already *know* bob = bob, and to be bobly is to be bob. Here's the kicker - 'logical' *is not* the same uselessness as the others. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I've done that for you and you've ignored it ever since coming to this thread. 'Logical' isn't reserved for a description of our logic. That's the entirety of your game that you're playing, and it's pointless. Our logic happens to be logical because it's a set of axioms. End of. Any other such set will also be logical because any other such set will count as being the thing which we, here on this universe, with the english language, call 'logic'. Anything outside of this - uninteresting uses of words and letters to convey absolutely nothing.

[GrandizerII]

I'm still not sure how you have arrived at that truth. Logically speaking (i.e. using the logic that we hold dear to), we can rule out the logical possibility of concept(2) + concept(2) = concept(5). As such, even if it was somehow true that logic is wrong in this case, it would be true despite our logic. But if it is true despite our logic, then I'm not sure how we can ever know it's true.

We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

Ok, so after all this back and forth arguing between you and Rhythm, what should we take out of this exactly? That "goblygoop" is logical in that universe where "goblygoop" happens to be logical?

I'll grant you that. Now what? It's still not logical using our logic. So what's the point?

[FallentoReason]

We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

Ok, so after all this back and forth arguing between you and Rhythm, what should we take out of this exactly? That "goblygoop" is logical in that universe where "goblygoop" happens to be logical?

I'll grant you that. Now what? It's still not logical using our logic. So what's the point?

Have a look for yourself: http://atheistforums.org/thread-45714-po...pid1425952

You will only have to go 3 - 4 back-and-forths deep to get a gist of where this logic stuff sprang from.

[FallentoReason]

What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be

I can think of one really neat word which could describe that.