On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

"2+2=5" means four things is equal to five things or something that is not something else is equal to that very something else that it is not or A=not A. It's violation in identity. If when you say "2+2=5" two doesn't mean two plus doesn't mean plus and five doesn't mean five then you may as well have said "sakgsngsakgjasigasji" to which my answer is "isagasigasjgiajsiajgia".

It's not even a successful hypothetical or premise.

"Imagine a hypothetical universe that is not itself because the law of identity doesn't apply" Doesn't actually mean anything. It's not even a premise. You can't have "A= not A" as a premise.

[The Grand Nudger]

"2+2=5" means four things is equal to five things or something that is not something else is equal to the something else that it is not or A=not A. It's violation in identity. If when you say "2+2=5" two doesn't mean two plus doesn't mean plus and five doesn't mean five then you may as well have said "sakgsngsakgjasigasji" to which my answer is "isagasigasjgiajsiajgia".

Yes, I know it's a violation of the law of identity, and if we're allowed to circumvent those same logical rules in response, my answer is and has been "cheesecake".  

Nevertheless, the proposition regards a universe in which such laws are not in effect anyway, whenever we refer to the, op can and wll easily and very rationally say -"no, different universe, that particular law is not in effect" and can do so even if he uses -some- of our laws. A universe in which 2+2 does actually, demonstrably, yield 5, in each and every case the terms being employed meaning exactly what we mean by them, here, and despite those same terms and that same operaion yielding 4 here..simply yielding a different sum because, surprise surprise, it's a different universe with different rules, where different shit happens - like, for example..extra things popping into existence when you add two and two.   

It's not even a successful hypothetical or premise.

I know, but the existence of such a universe, or it's violation of our logical laws is not the point of contention anyway, it's explicitly -stated- to violate our laws...it has different laws, it's own laws.  

"Imagine a hypothetical universe that is not itself because the law of identity doesn't apply" Doesn't actually mean anything. It's not even a premise. You can't have "A= not A" as a premise.

Again, I know, a difficult question, asking us to employ logic towards the illogical, but that;s what the OP asked for, so at least try.  Stonewalling over something explicitly acknowledged but not necessary, and objecting to something other than the point of contention...that does not speak to the question asked...is not rational, it's straw. It may be true, the hypothetical universe referred to is, by the ops own admission, not logical with respect to what we call logic, here..unfortunately, it's still straw. Being right about the specifics of something, doesn't mean that you haven't employed a fallacy in the manner in which you've used them.

-On the brightside, despite my disgust with the OP and the OP's proposition...I think that this exercise has at least some value, because more often than not, the sorts of propositions we handle here are fundamentally flawed. We often overthink and overcomplicate, which leads to confused responses from many posters..and ofc, provides the ops of those sorts of posts with all they need to keep trolling the shit out of logic and reason, and us. The o[p continues to repeat the poposition, acrossed the thread and across threads, because..and this is actually true (even a broken clock is right twice a day)...we haven;t actually addressed he op's proposition for what it is, in trying to first make it more sensible, and then knock down that much more sensible..but still straw, proposition of our own creation. The op has not proposed -that- such a univers exists, the op has explicitly acknowledged that it is only hypothetical. The op has not, in the sense that you are trying to approach, insisted that such a hypothetical universe is logical, precisely the opposite, OP has acknowledged that it -does not- operate on the rules you call logic. The op only asks whether or not, despite of all of that, acknowledged openly, those rules, those -different rules- themselves are logical, or can be called logical. Th OP thinks they can, by reference to the dictionary entry he linked.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, I know it's a violation of the law of identity, and if we're allowed to circumvent those same logical rules in response, my answer is and has been "cheesecake".

If there's a universe without the law of identity then that universe's identity is one without the law of identity which means it does have an identity which means it actually isn't without the law of identity.

You don't seem to realize what it means to violate the law of identity. It means you've not actually said what you think you've said. It means the OP's hypothetical didn't even succeed.

You can't create a tautology where you define X as being "A=not A" because tautologies don't even work without A=A.

If the OP is actually saying what the OP is actually saying then the law of identity is already implied. If the OP is not actually saying what the OP is not actually saying then the law of identity is already implied. If anything then the law of identity is already implied. ALL hypotheticals presuppose the truth of the law of identity. To say "if X then Y" implies that "If X then Y" is being said. Otherwise you're not actually saying "if X then Y". You can't create a tautology without the law of identity.

Nevertheless, the proposition regards a universe in which such laws are not in effect anyway, and in which 2+2 does actually, demonstrably yield 5,

You already admitted that that violates the law of identity. That means you're saying that the OP defines a universe where A= not A. That's a failed definition, a failed hypothetical, a failed premise.

For. Fuck's. Sake.

I know, but the existence of such a universe, or it's violation of our logical laws is not the point of contention anyway, it's explicitly -stated- to violate our laws...it has different laws, it's own laws.

Read what I said. I said it's not even a successful hypothetical or premise. I'm saying it's impossible to describe a universe without giving a universe a description. It's impossible to have a hypothetical universe without an identity. The fact that any hypothetical has an identity means that whatever it is it is whatever it is... or A=A. The Law of identity. Are you done yet trying to fight your way out of something without fighting your way out of something?

[Edwardo Piet]

in each and every case the terms being employed meaning exactly what we mean by them

This. In each and every case the terms employed mean exactly what we mean by them. In other words A=A. Exactly. In all hypotheticals and premises A always =A. The law of identity always holds. You've just admitted I'm right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ham, you're an idiot, you think that you're arguing with -me-.

I'm not disputing that it holds, I obviously think that it does.  I've told you, so many times now, that I agree with you. The op lobbed a ridiculous "axiom sexism" charge at me n the last thread precisely because I do think it holds, and tailor my responses to the op proposition to conform with logical rules as I know them, lol.

Unfortunately, in the hypothetical,it doesn't -matter- whether or not it holds and so long as the op proposes a universe with different laws it doesn't -have- to hold, whether or not -we- are right about that...because, in that universe, even if the law of identity holds, 2+2 still yields the sum of 5.  It's a different universe, different shit happens because of different rules. 5 -is- the identity of the sum of two and two, in that universe, if the law holds...but obviously there must be some other things that are different about that universe to make it such that the identity of the sum here and there is different, to break the law -between- universes.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ham, you're an idiot, you think that you're arguing with -me-.

No, you're an idiot. You're arguing with yourself.

I'm not disputing that it holds, I obviously think that it does.  I've told you, so many times now, that I agree with you.

You're not agreeing with me because you keep saying things I disagree with and you keep contradicting yourself.

You're disputing that it holds in all hypothetical universes. But it does hold in all hypothetical universes. You can't even have a hypothetical without it. You can't define or hypothetisize or describe anything without that description being a description, without A=A.

even if the law of identity holds, 2+2 still yields the sum of 5.

You already admitted that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity. The law of identity can't hold if 2+2 yields the sum of 5. You're contradicting yourself and you don't even realize it.

 

It's a different universe, different shit happens because of different rules.

It doesn't fucking matter whether it's hypothetical or what universe it is. You can't even hypothetize it or define it or describe it without building the law of identity into it. If A does not =A there is nothing being described.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously, it can be hypothesized...it -has been- hypothesized.  Again, go ahead, let the law of identity be included, ofc -I- include it, I'm trying to approach the irrational rationally.  To address the actual point of contention despite the inherent irrationality of the hypothesis of such a universe.  This different universe can use -some- but not all of our laws (the op -does- want a coherent hypothetical alternate universe, in which things follow, he's said as much), and still be a different universe, where different things happen because of those different relationships.  Is it a logical universe, are the laws logical laws, if the only law that is shared between us identity?

Is that sufficient condition?

[Edwardo Piet]

All hypothetical rulesets presuppose hypothetical rulesets or IOW A=A.

[Jackalope]

Forest and trees, FFS.

[Edwardo Piet]

Unfortunately, in the hypothetical,it doesn't -matter- whether or not it holds and so long as the op proposes a universe with different laws it doesn't -have- to hold,

Yes it does have to hold. Stop telling me you agree with me and then telling me that the law of identity doesn't have to hold.

How many more times. You can't create a tautology where you're defining a universe without the law of identity because the law of identity is A=A and you can't have tautologies or defintions without A=A.

I don't give a fuck what universe it is A=A.