On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

There isn't such a universe hypothesized. No universe where 2+2=5 has been hypothesized.

He has, I have, just stop.

 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.

-and that is where you are completely wrong.  The law of identity doesn't imply that 2+2=4, it -states- that something is what it is and not what it is not.  In the -hypothetical universe-, the identity of the sum of 2+2 is 5, so even if we are invoking that law...which we don't have to..but I do for convenience and to make this somehow sensible, that -is- what the sum of 2 and 2 is.  It's 5.  That's not what it is -here-...outside of the hypothetical, but that's irrelevant. Because this is a different universe with some other, different laws that lead to different results...which, themselves, can adhere to identity and still be different from ours....because, again, it's fucking different. The reason that 4 is the identity of 2+2 here, is because that;s what happens when you add those quantities. If, in that universe, when you add those quanities some extra, 5th thing appears..the correct and valid sum...the identity of the sum..of 2+2...is 5. It is what it is, and not what it's not..which, an example of what it is -not- in that hypothetical universe, is 4. Nevertheless, is this enough, is this adhernce to identity, as it is or would be in a different universe where things are different, sufficient condition to term this ruleset a logical one?

If...you....cannot...entertain..this....you cannot -help- but to pitch straw, to completely miss ops point, my point, the entire point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Also, I'm not the one with communication difficulties here. I'm trying to explain how the so-called question that you are telling me to address instead can't even be addressed because it makes no sense and it's based on a premise that contradicts itself because it implies the law of identity when it explictly says it doesn't, and yet you tell me you agree with me.

The only way I'm having a communication difficulty is being unable to explain in simple enough terms why we DON'T agree and why the OP's question can't be answered because it's nonsense. If we agreed you'd agree with me that there are no hypotheticals that don't imply the truth of the law of identity and you'd realize the OP's question was nonsense, you'd understand the relevance and you'd stop telling me that you agree and stop telling me to address the nonsense question in the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not having any trouble addressing a nonsensical question.  Maybe it's just you?

Saying that this universe has different laws is not a self contradiction even if we say it includes the law of identity.  Poker and blackjack have some of the same rules, a 9 has the value and identity of 9 in both games, and yet the rulesets in total are different.  Is poker blackjackical?

[Edwardo Piet]

He has, I have, just stop.

No. You think you have. But you can't concieve of anything without implying the truth of the law of identity and you've already agreed that 2+2=5 violates that so no you haven't hypothesized it, you've either hypothesized nothing or you've hypothesized a universe with the law of identity and where 2+2=4 and you've merely labelled it as a universe without the law of identity and where 2+2=5. This is the use/mention error you keep making. Just because it's possible to mention "2+2=5" hypothetically doesn't mean you're actually successfully saying that 2 things and 2 things could be 5 things hypothetically.

I need someone else to get their ass in this thread who understands the full implications of the truth of the law of identity

-and that is where you are completely wrong.  The law of identity doesn't imply that 2+2=4, it -states- that something is what it is and not what it is not.

It does state that and that's why it implies it. 2+2=4 means that two things and two things are the same as 4 things. Or in other words 2+2=2+2 or 4=4. Or A=A. The law of identity.

And this is the part you've already agreed with before, you've already agreed that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity. This is where you're contradicting yourself.

 In the -hypothetical universe-, the identity of the sum of 2+2 is 5,

It can't be. You can label it thus but 4 things cannot be 5 things. "4" can be "5" but 4 can not be 5. I hope to fuck you understand the difference and the purpose of the air quotes.

so even if we are invoking that law...which we don't have to.

Yes we do have to.

.but I do for convenience and to make this somehow sensible, that -is- what the sum of 2 and 2 is.  It's 5.  That's not what it is -here-...outside of the hypothetical, but that's irrelevant.

It's not what it is anywhere. "5" could be redefined or relabelled to be anything, even cheesecake. But 5 things can never be anything but 5 things, in any universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're not addressing what I'm -saying-.  I'm not -labeling- it 5, it -is- 5.  In this universe, for whatever reason, when you take two pebbles from one hand, and put them into the other hand already holding two pebbles...another pebble appears.  2+2=5.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not having any trouble addressing a nonsensical question.  Maybe it's just you?

Saying that this universe has different laws is not a self contradiction even if we say it includes the law of identity.

I agree. But the OP doesn't say that, the OP says it has none of our laws.

The OP also says 2+2=5 and that cannot be so if the Law of Identity holds.

So when the OP asks if such a premise is logical I say "What premise? You have made no coherent premise. It's not illogical by virtue of having alternative logical laws that make no sense to us, it's illogical by failing to be a premise that describes such laws because it contradicts itself by implicitly saying that it doesn't have the Law of Identity whilst at the same time presupposing such a law being such a law is absolute and transcends all universes. A=A means whatever universes there are, whatever laws they have, they must be whatever they are and have whatever laws they have. A=A. Whatever is being described it must be being described. Due to this the OP has failed to even create a hypothetical so there's no question to address because the question is based on the failed hypothetical. 

Right, now I'm going to quote where I demonstrated with a question of my own why the premise of the OP falls to pieces. And you can address that.

It does no good to tell me to "stop" because why would I? I'm entitled to discuss this here, you don't have to respond to me, but if you respond I'm entitled to respond back. I don't agree that you agree with me because I don't agree that the premise in the OP can be addressed at all because I don't agree that such a premise has been successfuly made.

What we disagree on:

We disagree on whether all hypotheticals in all universes presuppose the truth of the law of identity.

We disagree on whether the OP has successfully made a hypothetical.

It seems sometimes that we disagree that 2+2=5 is a violation of the law of identity but it's not clear because you're contradicting yourself there. You've said that it violates it but you've also said that the law of identity doesn't imply that 2+2=4. Therein lies a contradiction. That you don't see the contradiction demonstrates that you don't understand why 2+2=5 violates the law of identity and why 2+2=4 and you don't understand the full extent of what the truth of the law of identity implies. When we accept A=A in this universe and we fully understand the implications of that we realize that it applies in all universes and nothing can even be hypothesized and no premises can even be made without it. Any time people think it's not implied they're mistaken.

Right, now I'm going to quote where I demonstrated with a question of my own why the premise of the OP falls to pieces. And you can address that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Found it.

Question to the OP.

When you're saying Goblygoop has none of our logical laws are you saying that it has none of our logical laws? If yes then you've given it the law of identity. If no then you've given it the law of identity. Your premise is fucked.

This is why I'm right.

Whether the answer is "yes" or "no" to this question I asked here in the above quoted text... the law of identity applies in the universe the OP hypothesized. This is because all hypotheticals imply the law of identity. So when the OP says otherwise explicitly he's contradicting this implication and that's why the hypothetical is self-contradictory and why there's no coherent question to address.

Read what I said... notice how whether it's a "yes" or a "no" the law of identity's truth is implied. The OP's premise and therefore concluding question is fucked implicitly from the outset.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does what op says have something to do with what I say, Ham? I've been asking you, for awhile, a less shit for brains version of op's question.

-and again..if it -does- have that one law, identity, and all else is different, is that enough, in your opinion, to call the ruleset "logical"?

[Jackalope]

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.

...and I'm not the one who is completely and utterly, despite having it explained ad nauseum, misapplying the law of identity.

P.S. I'm not ragequitting, I'm simply recognizing that one cannot have a conversation with a brick wall. You're being as stubbornly wrong as Waldork here, FFS.

[Edwardo Piet]

Does what op says have something to do with what I say, Ham?

Yes when you tell me that in the OP's hypothetical A need not =A and 2+2 perhaps can =5... that's what the OP is saying. You're at least accepting the hypotehtical of 2+2=5 in another universe or the law of identity not applying in naother universe.

I've been asking you, for awhile, a less shit for brains version of op's question.

Whilst continuing to go on about 2+2 could =5 even if the law of identity applies. No it couldn't. 2+2=4 means 2 and 2 has the same identity as 4. 5 does not have the same identity as 4. In any universe. When we say 5 we mean 5 things which is not the same as two things and two things, that's 4 things. Doesn't matter what universe it is, if we're talking 2 and 2 we're talking 4. We can relabel and redefine 2+2 to mean "5" but the identity of 2+2 is still 2+2/4 and not 5, and the identity of 5 is always 5.

Identity =/= labelling. 4 and 5 =/= "4" and "5".

and again..if it -does- have that one law, identity,

And it has to.

and all else is different, is that enough, in your opinion, to call the ruleset "logical"?

Yes because it would also imply that 2+2=4 and not 5 and I'm yet to see any difference between the OP's logical laws and ours therefore besides "there are other laws", because, as Bennyboy said, the OP has failed to give any hypotehtical examples that could apply in any universe at all.