On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would like to add that there are two separate problems: 1) whether there are absolutes or not and 2) whether human thought processes can determine if any particular principles are indeed absolute.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither of which is a problem for the question at hand.

[GrandizerII]

This thread has been very enlightening, but not in the way the OP intended.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're still ignoring that in a universe with -different laws-.

I've already explained repeatedly that alternative universes are irrelevant to the logical absolutes. It doesn't matter what universe it is. Universes are based on the logical absolutes, not the other way around.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would like to add that there are two separate problems: 1) whether there are absolutes or not and 2) whether human thought processes can  determine if any particular principles are indeed absolute.

Right.

Neither of which is a problem for the question at hand.

Wrong.

Because logical absolutes are absolute, hypotheticals can't be hypothesized that violate them--because the very structure of hypotheticals themselves are built onto them and all universes must conform to them (that's why they're absolute)--nothing at all can violate logical absolutes. I get this, I fathom this, I realize this; you do not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Way to fail to address the question for yet another page, preferring instead to make arguments that are irrelevant -to- the question. Your logical absolute was included. Identity was satisfied. You shouldn't have a problem anymore..you should be able to move on to the subject of the question....but you do, and I can't for the life of me figure out what that is.

Is it that you simply can't countenance the notion of identity applying and being true and giving two different sums? Well, talke heart, no ones proposed this as an actuality. It doesn;t happen. That;s not the point, has never been the pont, will never be the point. You don't -need- to argue that it isn't the case, no one has claimed that it is...it's just a thought experiment used to ask a question.

[GrandizerII]

I would like to add that there are two separate problems: 1) whether there are absolutes or not and 2) whether human thought processes can  determine if any particular principles are indeed absolute.

Right.

Neither of which is a problem for the question at hand.

Wrong.

Because logical absolutes are absolute, hypotheticals can't be hypothesized that violate them...--because the very structure of hypotheticals themselves are built onto them and all universes must conform to them (that's why they're absolute)--nothing at all can violate logical absolutes. I get this, I fathom this, I realize this; you do not.

I would say nothing at all should violate logical absolutes. We should never be too confident about the law of identity or other logical laws/absolutes holding unconditionally in every single form of reality there may be. That would be folly.

To be clear, I'm not saying at all we should not always rely on logic in order to arrive at all truths we can arrive at, or that we should entertain the use of some "illogic" to determine truths about this reality we're in. But at the same time, let's not absolutely assert that every aspect/form of this reality must absolutely unconditionally conform to logic. It would be nonsense, of course, if it did not conform absolutely to logic, but you just never know.

[Edwardo Piet]

Way to fail to address the question for yet another page

I already dealt with this repeatedly.

[bennyboy]

I'd like to ask a question, aimed at those who have tried copious amounts of drugs, specifically LSD and maybe marijuana. Would you say that coherence in an altered state represents an alternative subjective "universe"? I ask this because the rules of mind are very much altered during synesthesia-- the crossover of senses-- where you can smell what you're seeing, see what you're hearing, etc.

I'm not sure if this contributes much to the fascinating "What is 2 + 2" discussion, but still I'd say those states have a unique logic of their own, with some coherence. Maybe they are worth considering in this discussion?

[Edwardo Piet]

I would say nothing at all should violate logical absolutes.

Nothing can.

We should never be too confident about the law of identity or other logical laws/absolutes holding unconditionally in every single form of reality there may be. That would be folly.

It would be silly to not be absolutely confident about something absolute.

You can't define a reality where it doesn't apply, that's the whole point.

To be clear, I'm not saying at all we should not always rely on logic in order to arrive at all truths we can arrive at, or that we should entertain the use of some "illogic" to determine truths about this reality we're in.

There may be other forms of logic that are illogical to us and so we call them "illogic" but such "illogic" still has to conform to A=A. Everything does.

All definitions and all tautologies must conform to A=A.

But at the same time, let's not absolutely assert that every aspect/form of this reality must absolutely unconditionally conform to logic.

Absolutely everything has to conform to the logical absolutes.

It would be nonsense, of course, if it did not conform absolutely to logic, but you just never know.

Total nonsense that violates A=A cannot exist. You can't have something that isn't something. You can't have A that doesn't=A. A that isn't A or something that isn't something is nothing.