On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Jackalope]

I told you enough times it doesn't fucking matter what universe it is and I've given my reasons. A=A is absolute in all hypotheticals. Address that.

Jesus fuck, Ham, you're so stubbornly arguing a point upon which there is no disagreement that you're missing Rhythm's point, and the point of the OP, entirely.

If your point is that we can't entertain absurdities, well, you're just wrong about that. It's a goddamned thought experiment, not an existential claim.

[Edwardo Piet]

The law of identity refers to what we observe here, in our universe.  

No it doesn't. It refers to the truth that A=A. What universe we're talking about is irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

I told you enough times it doesn't fucking matter what universe it is and I've given my reasons. A=A is absolute in all hypotheticals. Address that.

Jesus fuck, Ham, you're so stubbornly arguing a point upon which there is no disagreement that you're missing Rhythm's point, and the point of the OP, entirely.

If your point is that we can't entertain absurdities, well, you're just wrong about that.  It's a goddamned thought experiment, not an existential claim.

No. The OP fails to even make a coherent point and Rhythm is telling me he agrees despite saying that in the hypothetical of the OP the law of identity doesn't hold, but it does hold, regardless of what the OP actually says. A=A holds everywhere. The OP can't say anything without saying anything. The OP can't hypothesize without A=A.

Rhythm says he agrees as he continues to tell me that in the OP's hypothetical A=A doesn't apply. But it does apply. Either that or there's no premise at all. You can't have a premise without A=A.

[Edwardo Piet]

If your point is that we can't entertain absurdities, well, you're just wrong about that.  It's a goddamned thought experiment, not an existential claim.

That's not my point. My point is we can't entertain absurdities without the logical law of A=A. Because we can't entertain absurdities without entertaining absurdites. There can't be a hypothetical without there being a hypothetical. Whatever hypothetical the OP is it is whatever it is. A=A. It can't contain within itself the premise that it doesn't contain the law A=A because A=A is already presupposed by having a premise at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Im telling you -that it doesn;t have to...-in the hypothetical-...because the hypothetical is a different universe, with with different rules, where different thigs happen and are true, despite being..well...you know, different.  Where 2+2 does equal 5, even if 2+2 equals 4 here, for reasons unknown to us but very loosely given an explanation...as the effect, in that universe, of adding two things to two things.

I agree with you, that the law of identity holds -in all logical universes..and I don;t think that an illogical universe exists.  The hypothetical universe simply is such a universe, by brute force of description.  Whether or not it exists or can exist, in actuality, is not the question, not my point, not the op's point.

The op wants to know whether or not, whatever the laws of that universe are, they can be correctly termed "logical"...and in that, even if the law of identity does hold - which it doesn't have to, because, you know, different universe where things are different...I say no.  I'm content to let different hypothetical universes be different, and insist that if we're going to consider them we use terms to help differentiate them -so- that we can consider them.  Even if that universe -does- hold to identity, that is not sufficient condition, imo, to call it logical, because assuming identity, we still have the problem of arriving at two disparate sums from an identical mathematical operation -between- universes while the same rule holds -within- universes. Obviously, something else is askance, it;s -different, not logical...."x"ical.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sigh. I feel like I'm the only one here who understands the implications of the truth of the law of identity. It's a truth that all hypotheticals and premises are based on and what universe is irrelevant. You can't entertain absurdities without entertaining absurdities. It doesn't matter even hypothetically what other laws there may be in another universe the laws that the other universe has has to at least have the laws that the other universe has. A has to =A.

There's an implicit premise within all hypotheticals that A=A. You can't begin a premise or a hypothetical without it. So any hypothetical that says the law of identity doesn't apply is already self-contradictory and a failed premise.

[Edwardo Piet]

Im telling you -that it doesn;t have to...-in the hypothetical-

Yes it does.

...because the hypothetical is a different universe,

Irrelevant.

with with different rules,

by having rules at all it has an identity and thereby the law of identity applies.

[Jackalope]

Let's approach this from a different angle, Ham.

"It is possible to consider the implications of irrational axioms."

True or false?

[The Grand Nudger]

-ad again, it doesn't matter if the law of identity applies...to the subject of the ops question..unless the presence of that law alone, in relation to whatever it takes to make 2+2=5...is sufficient condition for such a ruleset to be called logical.

The op wishes to evade logical rules, for reasons made plain the the last thread..which that nubbin can link to whenever he wants to blow the whole thing.  Fine, let him evade logic if -he- wants to.  Let him propose some other set of rules.  There's no sense in then, however, allowing him to call those rules "logical" - he;s the one who insisted that there be different rules in the first place, that those rules be different. He can own it, and choke on it.

It's just a convenient equivocation, not an issue of whether or not identity holds here, there, or everywhere - that is irrelevant, and not an issue of disagreement between us in any case.

[Edwardo Piet]

Premise 1: Hypotheticals have to be hypotheticals.
Premise 2. "Hypotheticals have to be hypotheticals" is an expression of the law of identity: A=A.
Conclusion: All hypotheticals presuppose the law of identity.

You can't have an "if X then Y" without presupposing that "if"="if" "then"="then" and "Y"="Y".

You can't have a hypothetical universe with other logical laws that don't have other logical laws. You can't have a hypothetical universe where A=A is false.

You can't describe anything or hypothesize anything without describing and hypothesizing. Without A=A.

If you say "In hypothetical universe X the law of identity doesn't apply" you're implicitly saying "Hypothetical universe X has the identity of not having an identity". That doesn't work.

There is no description without an identity. Descriptions have to be descriptions and that which describes something has to describe something. All descriptions and hypotheticals presuppose that A=A.