On Logic and Alternate Universes

[bennyboy]

---

If you don't see why two things and two things aren't five things then there's no hope for you.

OFC I see why two things and two things isn't five things, in this universe.  However, in a universe in which two things plus two things -was- five things..it would be similarly easy to see that it was, in fact, five things.

The universe is irrelevant.

Obviously not, since at least one difference between our universe and the hypothetical universe is that here, 2+2=4, and there 2+2=5.

Two things and two things are not five things.

Not here, ofc.  

If another thing pops into existence that's just another thing popping into existence, two things and two things are still four things, four things are still four things, five things are still five things, A=A.

There is no such thing as four things in a universe where two and two is five.  Their math would reflect that anytime two things are added to two things, you have five things..because that's what happens in their, hyporthetical universe.  Just as our math reflects that adding two things to two things gives you four things.  

Just accept this and move on..so that you can finally speak to the actual question, lol.

If you think any universe can be hypotehsized where A=A then I'm not the one with slipping sanity.

I didn't propose such a universe, though I allowed that a hypothetical world in which our rules don;t apply -could be-.  In my universe, I explicitly appealed to identity, and the identity of the sum of two plus two..in that universe, is five.  Not four.  Five.  Even if the law of identity holds in that universe, 2+2=5.  That's just how that universe is, in the hypothetical.

Although in all honesty I think you just don't understand the law of identity. A=A is absolute in all universes. It's not about labels, it's absolute in all universes. Those universes don't have to be existent, they can be possible, and hypothetical. A=A applies to everything. It's a logical absolute. It applies to all hypotheticals, yes, it applies to everything.

-that's nce, but since you and I agree, and since my example agrees....so what?  

You need to realize that there are hidden premises, implicit premises, in addition to the explicit ones written within the OP.

There's nothing hidden in my example.  2+2=5, in the hypothetical universe.  Are the rules that would lead to this being true logical rules?

The universality of the law of identity, Ham, is irrelevant.  Propose the question without it, and the question is what it is.  Propose the question with it, and it's still the same question.  Argue, endlessly, about the universality of identity....with people who agree with you on that count, no less... and you aren't even discussing the question.

---

Case in point.   You aren't really talking about a universe in which 2+2 = 5.  You are talking about a universe in which math is not math.  You might as well talk about a universe in which apples are oranges, and in which red is blue.

You can say that there are different colors, that we can't even experience here, in that other universe.  But if there's red-- it's red.  Similarly, you could have strange rules where the math is goofy.  But it wouldn't be 2 + 2 = 5.  It would be booble $ dweeble @ dwoobie.  It could NOT share our function of addition, because such a system would not HAVE addition, any more than we have a sensible /0.

Here's you guys:

[The Grand Nudger]

'm just talking about a universe whose math reflects the relationships observed in their universe..just as ours reflects the relationships we see here.  It;s different math, with respect to -our- math it;s bad math.....but it's their math, nevertheless, and accurately decribes the relationship between quantities as those relationships express themselves in their universe...because their universe is..wait for it...different.

Do you think that it would be sensible or useful to describe the rules which would lead to 2+2 being 5 as logical..or would you, instead, think such rules would deserve their own term?

[Edwardo Piet]

Correct Bennyboy. Dweeble dobble indeed hence the "jsagosagjasgosa"

Thanks for making me feel understood. It indeed wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 makes as little sense as there being square circles. And anyone who tells me that there can be a universe where 2+2=5, in the same sense we mean it, and that it would have that identity and not just be labelled differently or in another language, is talking out of their arse as much as anyone who says that square circles can be in other universes, even hypotheticals. "If square circles existed then square circles would exist", sorry, failed hypothetical, you just said the equivalent of "If something that was logically impossible was not logically impossible then it would not logically be impossible" or "if A was not A then it would not be A", but that makes no sense because there's not even a hypothetical where "A" could be "not A" there is not "If A could not be A", the very fact there's an "if" at all presupposes "if=if" or "A=A".

It's like saying if something was nothing it would be nothing, well, no, nothing can't be. "A" represents "something". "Circles" represents "circles", "squares" represents "squares", "square circles" represents nothing. Nonexistence cannot be represented. It's nothing more than a word for that which cannot be represented. There is "nothing" but there isn't nothing. There isn't even hypothetically a nothing. There's only hypothetically, and actually, a "nothing". You can label or mention, "Nothing", "not A" or "square circles", but you can't even imagine nothing, not A or square circles, such things don't even exist as hypotheticals. So there (same goes for 2+2=5 and for the same reasons... theres "2+2=5" but there isn't 2+2=5. There's "nothing" or "square circles" but there isn't nothing or square circles. Use/mention distinction).

[The Grand Nudger]

No one's having any trouble understanding you Ham, lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sureeeeeeeeee

So can 2+2=5 be a hypothhetical or not? If you understand that it can't then you understand me, if not, not. See my sig.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the hypothetical universe, it's not a hypothetical.  It's a fact.  The identity (see, look ma!, identity, indentity identity identity) of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. Not 2, not 3, and 4 is right out. 5.

If such a universe did exist, wherein such laws as would be necessary (including identity, identity identity identity) were in effect, would it be sensible or useful to call those laws logical, or would they deserve their own term?

Say.... nonsense, or bullshit, or goblygoop?

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you think that it would be sensible or useful to describe the rules which would lead to 2+2 being 5 as logical..

Can't be done. Can't even by hypothesized. Can only be mentioned or labelled that way.

or would you, instead, think such rules would deserve their own term?

Such rules couldn't exist to be given another term. And if there could? There isn't even any "if there could" about it, that's the whole point. If they could then there would be a logical contradiction which would mean they couldn't. 2+2=5 ultimately violates the law of identity which means 2+2=not 5.

If there were other logical mathematical logical laws they certainly wouldn't be any logical or mathematical laws that violate the law of identity, like 2+2=5 or any other of the bullshit mentioned in the OP/failed to be hypothesized in the OP without presupposing the law of identity and thereby contradicting the hypothesis itself which is what I mean by failed to be hypothesized.

[The Grand Nudger]

As has already been explained to you, including the law of identitity does not mean that the rest of the laws involved could not be different.  A different universe -can be- different, even if there are some similarities.  Such as, for example, the law of identity held, and in that universe, because of the differences of -other- laws, the identity of the sum of 2+2....was 5.

Obviously such a universe can by hypothesized, I just did it.

So, again.

If such a universe existed.  If such laws existed in that universe as to make such a thing true (which have been proposed...the goggdidit magical popping into existence of a 5th thing when two things are added to two things) would it make sense or be useful to call such rules logical, or would they deserve their own term?

Whether or not such rules do exist, or can exist, by reference to what we call logic..irrelevant Ham. Completely irrelevant. Not what you're being asked. It's just a thought experiment. 2+2=5 -does not- violate the law of identity, it violates the law of identity -as it relates to quantities and their relationships..in this universe....but we're talking about a different universe, capiche? It is, in my example, an explicit assumption of the law of identty as it relates to the relationships between quantities -in that universe-. Obviously, something must be different, bewteen here and there, since the answer is 4 here, and 5 there. What's -not- different, is the law of identity itself.

So try, try really hard, not to bicker again, over that...

[Neo-Scholastic]

If in the sum total of all possible universes at least one unintelligible universe exists then by necessity are other universes are also unintelligible. No matter how many alternate universes exist in a greater multiverse there will always only be one reality - all that is, was or ever will be. Now, suppose in another universe, of which we have no knowledge, the LOI does not hold. Since both our universe and the absurd alternate universe are in the same reality that means the reality within which we find ourselves is absurd. With respect to reality the LOI (and other logical and mathematical principles) must fail as a whole or not at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our universe would be a little enclave of logic within a larger, absurd, reality.  I don't think that's true, but hey, it's not something I can discount.  The greater reality being absurd would't suddenly cause logic not to work here, so I couldn't personally sign onboard with the all or nothing hypothesis.

In that larger "greater reality" our little chunk has some rules which we refer to as logical.  If, in some other chunk, some other set of rules existed, such that 2+2=5....would it be sensible or useful to call those rules logical rules?