On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

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

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

True or false?

It is not possible to consider the implications of irrational axioms without considering the implications of irrational axioms. In other words it's not possible to consider the implications of irrational axioms without A=A holding true. The law of identity is implicit.

The question is loaded.

So in short my answer is: "True but not without the law of identity applying while we're considering it".

[The Grand Nudger]

This universe clearly does have other laws, even if it has -some- of the same laws...for example, if it is true that in that universe, 2+2=5, each term meaning exactly what we mean by them, in this universe. Obviously, for that to be true...even assuming identity, some other rules must be at play, some other relationships between propositions, inference, and conclusions...that we don;t know about, things that aren't occurring here.

Is the presence of that law, despite the presence of what must some other, unknown set of laws, sufficient condition to describe those rules, whatever they are, as logical? Does it help us to discuss them, by using th same term for them, despite what must be an incredible difference, in spite of any single similarity, between them?

[Jackalope]

LOL. Yeah, I'm done here.

Forest, meet trees.

[Edwardo Piet]

You can't have a hypothetical without implying the truth of the law of identity. "if X then Y" has to mean "If X then Y".

You can't define your way out of a law that is already presupposed when you try to define your way out of it.

A=A is absolutely absolute. That's the whole point of the law of identity. However different other universes are... A=A must apply. However different things are those things must be however different they are.

You can't have an "if X then Y" without this. You can't have a premise without this. The truth of the law of identity applies whether any conscious beings are here to conceptualize it or know it or not, regardless of the universe.

If there was an entirely different universe with some logical laws that were different and with no conscious beings around to conceptualize the law of identity then there would be an entirely different universe with some logical laws that were different and with no conscious beings around to conceptualize the law of identity. A would =A. Doesn't matter what the hypothetical is. A=A. 2+2=4.

Maybe some other laws could be different but A=A and all its implications, such as 2+2=4, applies to all hypotheticals, all thought, all conceptualizations, all universes and all existence. To literally everyhing. We can say "2+2=5" or "A is not A" but we can't actually conceptualize what we think we are conceptualizing. This is the use/mention distinction. To mention "2+2=5" and "A=not A" is merely labelling. Such things have not actually been conceptualized. Four things are four things and not five things. Two things and two things are four things and not five things. Saying they can be five things in another hypothetical universe is simply false. All that could change is the labelling A=A is an absolute logical truth that transcends everything else. It is not its concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oooooooookaaaaaaay..........

-and assuming that what you have just said is true...which iIve been presenting examples of for some time now in order to get you passed this little mental logjam.........is the presence of the law of identity, and the fact that it holds in this alternate universe...where 2+2=5...sufficient condition to consider the ruleset that must be at play for that to -be- true....logical?

Because if it isn't, then -all- of your arguments to that effect, are pointless, irrelevant, straw.

[Jackalope]

You can't have a hypothetical without implying the truth of the law of identity. "if X then Y" has to mean "If X then Y".

You can't define your way out of a law that is already implied when you try to define your way out of it.

No shit, Sherlock. You won't shut up long enough about that - which everyone agrees on - in order to see the what people are actually talking about. Nor would you let go of that goddamn bone long enough for me to get to the second leg of the point I was trying to make.

You aren't listening. Ergo, it's pointless to attempt to communicate with you. So I'm done.

Enjoy arguing with yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL.  Yeah, I'm done here.  

Forest, meet trees.

I've been saying it for awhile, baffled by bullshit.  That's the god botherer's stock and trade.  It's useful in that it can make a very smart person just implode, fantastically, as we've seen here.

Well played on that, btw, Fallen, well played. 

[Edwardo Piet]

Oooooooookaaaaaaay..........

-and assuming that what you have just said is true...which iIve been presenting examples of for some time now in order to get you passed this little mental logjam.........is the presence of the law of identity, and the fact that it holds in this alternate universe...where 2+2=5

There isn't such a universe hypothesized. No universe where 2+2=5 has been hypothesized. The OP thinks he has hypothesized such a thing and he's said explictly that he has but by trying to do so he's already presupposed a logical law that implies that 2+2=4 so he's violated his own hypothetical. The OP in essence has implicitly said "Suppose there is a universe without any logical laws and 2+2=5 oh but not really because of the law of identity" without realizing that's what I'm hearing because that's what's implied. You can't have a hypothetical that isn't itself. You can't have a hypothetical where A=not A. I can't address a question that doesn't even make any sense or a premise that isn't actually saying anything because it contains implicit contradictions that destroy its own meaning and I can see it.

[Edwardo Piet]

You can't have a hypothetical without implying the truth of the law of identity. "if X then Y" has to mean "If X then Y".

You can't define your way out of a law that is already implied when you try to define your way out of it.

No shit, Sherlock.  You won't shut up long enough about that - which everyone agrees on - in order to see the what people are actually talking about.  Nor would you let go of that goddamn bone long enough for me to get to the second leg of the point I was trying to make.

You aren't listening.  Ergo, it's pointless to attempt to communicate with you.  So I'm done.

Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Rhythm has repeatedly said that it doesn't apply to the hypothetical and I'm saying it does. What I'm repeatedly saying that you agree to implies that it applies to the hypothetical but neither you nor rhythm see it. I keep repeating myself because I'm struggling to make it any clearer.

You can't have a hypothetical without A=A because you can't have anything without A=A. A hypothetical has to be a hypothetical.

If this is a "no shit Sherlock" thing and you two apparently repeatedly agree with it then you need to stop saying that in the hypothetical of the OP the law of identity doesn't apply. It does.

You can't have an irrational axiom without the law of identity.

[Edwardo Piet]

Enjoy arguing with yourself.

I'm not the one contradicting myself and the other person and telling them that I'm agreeing with them, here. I'm not the one missing the implication. I'm not the one who started with the insults. I'm not the one who ragequits when someone disagrees with me.