On Logic and Alternate Universes

[GrandizerII]

It's necessarily true in our universe, according to a priori logic.

Andromeda collides with Milky Way, of the two how many galaxies will remain afterward?

This is not represented by something like 1 + 1 or 2 + 2. Collision of galaxies is not exactly the same as adding them together.

[Edwardo Piet]

2+2 will always be 2+2 or IOW will always be 4 or 1 more than 3 or 1 less than 5 or any more expressions of two things and two things/four things. What universe it is or what logical laws those universes have is irrelevant. The Law of Identity can't be violated even hypothetically. It's an absolute law that must hold everywhere. It doesn't matter whether beings exist to conceptualize it or not. The truth of the law of identity =/= the existence of the concept of it within the minds of beings. The Law of Identity transcends cosmology and physics.

Again:

For the law of identity to be false it would require A to =not A. Which means that if you describe a universe without the law of identity you are describing a universe with it.

It's impossible to describe any universe without the Law of Identity. The truth of the law of identity is implied before any premise or hypothetical can even be made. Period and full stop. To describe anything is to give something an identity in the same sense described within the concept of the law of identity itself. The truth of the law of identity is implied and it was implied back in the stone age before such a truth was conceptualized, and it was true before humans existed or before any life existed and it would be true in any universe you can imagine and even any universe you can't imagine. That something is what it is is true everywhere regardless of what that "everywhere" is.

It can't be true that A=not A. That can't be true anywhere. That's a law that must hold everywhere. In all universes, in all dimensions, both real and hypothetical. That's the law of identity and that can't be false.

Whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes they must at least be whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes . THAT is the implicit truth of The Law of Identity and THEREFORE it's true in all hypothetical universes.

A must=A and if there is no A then not A must = not A. That's The Law of Identity. It's absolute and transcends all hypotheticals because it's already presupposed before a hypothetical can even be hypothsized.

Whatever 'other logical laws' there are, there must at least be the Law of Identity.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes they must at least be whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes . THAT is the implicit truth of The Law of Identity and THEREFORE it's true in all hypothetical universes.

^^^This^^^ Is as concise and as best I can explain why The Law of Identity must hold in all hypothetical universes and you can't even have a premise or a hypothetical without it. The truth Law of Identity is already presupposed when hypotheticals and premsies are made (whatever hypotheticals and premises are made they are whatever they are and they mean whatever they mean. A=A ~ The Law of Identity. Without the truth of that presupposed you've failed to even make a premise or a hypothetical.). If anyone doesn't understand this then I don't see how I can possibly explain this any clearer. This is 100% correct.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Andromeda collides with Milky Way, of the two how many galaxies will remain afterward?

This is not represented by something like 1 + 1 or 2 + 2. Collision of galaxies is not exactly the same as adding them together.

Just using raw numbers sure. But then numbers and arithmatic are a representation of specific concepts, 2 sets of 2 don't meet the parameters to be set of 5 because that's not what 5 means. If numbers don't equal themselves then causality is fucked and whatever lives there wouldn't be able to comprehend the question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever lives in a universe where, when you add two things to two things, an extra thing pops into existence, would not only be able to comprehend the question they would be able to demonstrate the truth of the proposition, and would have a system of math where 2+2=5 without any redefinition of any concept contained in the operation.  

Don't get hung up on whether or not such a universe does or could exist, don't get hung up on the foolish notion that stipulating a universe implies that any law of this universe, such as identity, holds.  Yes, it's nonsense here, or anywhere that what we call logic holds.  Yes, it's illogical by reference to the very same so far as we're concerned and can determine.

Speak the the point of contention.  Can such be a statement logical.  Are the rules which lead to 2+2=5 being an accurate statement of the state of things as they are in that alternate universe in which it can and does happen just so, logical rules?

Yes, in the sense that the op wishes to call them as such, no, in the sense that they do not conform to what we call as such.  This state of being both true and false, ofc, is due to it's being a fucking equivocation (that's -why- equivocation is a fallacy)..nothing else, not some complicated wondering on the possibility of alternate universes with alternate rules, or a consideration of whether or not our rules hold in all universes, or whether or not a universe with another set of rules would be coherent, or whether or not an entity in that universe would be able to comprehend and utilize those rules.  It's just not that complicated.  Just an equivocation, right from the start, left to hang and tying some of us in knots because we attempt to make the insensible sensible, the illogical logical.  Let the poor guy have his alternate system, and since he -insists- that it's different, insist that he use a different term for it.  Otherwise we can't even consider it with -our- logic.  If the term "logical" refers to two different sets of rules, with different outcomes, we can;t know..when the term is employed, which we are talking about, and so we can;t know whether or not our statements regarding the term even -speak- to what is being referred to -by- the term.  Which is probably why it's so easy to call these objections raised to the very notion nonsensical themselves, since, by allowing equivocation, we allow the proposer to slip back and forth between different senses of the term at will and as is necessary to evade valid criticism.  So now, here we are, and this silly idea has gotten another ten pages of play after having already been fucking executed elsewhere, I hope you're proud of yourselves.  Pigeons win if you so much as play the game.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whatever lives in a universe where, when you add two things to two things, an extra thing pops into existence, would not only be able to comprehend the question they would be able to demonstrate the truth of the proposition, and would have a system of math where 2+2=5 without any redefinition of any concept contained in the operation.

Two things and two things would still be four things. The fact another thing would pop into existence is irrelevant. 2+2=4 .

You're equivocating.

As for the rest I've already dealt with it. Once again if you don't understand this:

Whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes they must at least be whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes . THAT is the implicit truth of The Law of Identity and THEREFORE it's true in all hypothetical universes.

Then there's no hope for you.

All hypotheticals and all premises presuppose the law of identity I don't give a fuck what universe it is. The Law of Identity is more fundamental than that.

You can't even say "If there was another universe without the law of identity then there would be another universe without the law of identity" because you can't even have a tautology like that without first implying the law of identity. The sentence "if there was another universe without the law of identity then there would be another universe without the law identity" implies that "if"="if" "then="then" "another universe=another universe", etc, etc... and guess what that is? The law of identity. You're screwing yourself without realizing it. You can't even have a tautology, or a defintion, or a hypothetical, or a premise without implying the truth of the law of identity so you can't define a hypothetical universe without it even when you think you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Two things and two things would still be four things. The fact another thing would pop into existence is irrelevant. 2+2=4

-Not- in a universe where, when you have two things and two things, another thing pops into existence.  In that universe, everytime you combined two things, you'd end up with fives things.  Their addition would either reflect that or be wrong with respect to what -does- happen, in their universe, when two quanitities of two things are combined.  Yes, yes, I know, I know, acording to what we know and what we call both logic and math this is nonsensical.  I know..

I know
I know
I know.

So, now that we're done with that.......

You're equivocating.

.............................................................holy, shit, Ham..............

To equivocate, with the statement above, I would have to be using different senses of any of the terms employed above, which I'm not. In their universe, that operation, of those quantities, yields that sum..in each case, exactly how we have defined every single term. Tw is two, as in two pebbles in my hand. Plus is adding things together, as in adding two pebbles to two pebbles, and 5, is five pebbles, as in the sum - in that universe, of two pebbles added to two pebbles, in my hand. That doesn;t happen here.

I know
I know
I know

It does happen there, that's the proposition.

Whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes they must at least be whatever other logical laws you're talking about in other hypothetical universes . THAT is the implicit truth of The Law of Identity and THEREFORE it's true in all hypothetical universes.

Then there's no hope for you.

You haven't seemed to realize, despite my stating plainly and more than once, that I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm simply reminding you that what we both agree on does not speak to the point of contention itself. Assume that all of it is true, assume that such a universe exists, assume that such an operation of such quanties yields such a sum. Are the rules which lead to such things being true..there, not here, -in that case-, in your opinion, logical? Why or why not? That;s what the OP is asking you, he's restated that this, and not all of the other stuff is what he;s asking you...I have explained both how and that this is all that he's asking you....and you have replied to that, to us both... by speaking to a host of other things. It's not, imo, that what you have said..by and large, is untrue, but that it is not relevant, or an objection to the point of contention.

It's a difficult to parse question (or not, going the route of strangling it in the cradle as I would, lol), because it asks us to employ logic towards the illogical, granted...but you can maintain, you can overcome that difficulty, I'm sure of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Bob can't be not Bob dude.

You're disagreeing with me by thinking that the law of identity isn't presupposed in all hypotheticals. It is. If we say "If X then Y" then we have to be saying "If X then Y".

When you're talking about a universe with other logical laws you have to be talking about a universe with other logical laws and that implies the law of identity being one of the laws amongst it.

You're already using it when you're saying "If the OP defines a hypothetical universe as one without logical laws then it must be a hypothetical universe without logical laws"... you're already implying TLOI right there.

You're saying such a universe can't have the law of identity because such a universe is defined to be "A" and "A"= universe without the law of identity. But you're saying A=A which implies it so you're not actually saying what you think you're saying.

You're saying "In such a universe A does not =A because A=A".....................

[Edwardo Piet]

.............................................................holy, shit, Ham..............  

To equivocate, with the statement above, I would have to be using different senses of any of the terms employed above, which I'm not.  In their universe, that operation, of those quantities, yields that sum..in each case, exactly how we have defined every single term.  Tw is two, as in two pebbles in my hand.  Plus is adding things together, as in adding two pebbles to two pebbles, and 5, is five pebbles, as in the sum - in that universe, of two pebbles added to two pebbles, in my hand.  That doesn;t happen here.

Oh for fuck's sake. You're saying that "2+2 =5" in such a universe because in such a universe another thing would pop into existence. But that's not what is meant by a sum. You're using your own made up sense of it (i.e. you're equivocating). 2+2 doesn't mean when you add two things and two things then no extra things pop into existence and 2+2=5 doesn't mean when you add two things and two things then 1 thing pops into existence. 2+2=4 means that two things and two things is the same amount of things as four things and two + two = 5 means that four things are five things which is simply false and logically impossible because it violates the law of identity. There is no hypothetical universe that we can describe that doesn't have a description. There is no hypothetical universe with an identity that doesn't have an identity. There is no hypothetical universe when A= not A. I feel like I'm totally wasting my time here this is really below me I need to find something more worthwhile than explaining to you why a universe with a a different identity must have an identity.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I didn't dispute its existence. I don't know what it means for 2 + 2 to = 5, I have no idea what the implications are because nobody told me.