|
On Logic and Alternate Universes
|
I think EP just wanted to press my 'on' button.
Switch me on, switch me off. That's what everyone does. Well, apart from the off part. There is no off sorry 
Was talking about rhythm, though
Mind catching me up? RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 16, 2016 at 11:41 pm
(This post was last modified: November 16, 2016 at 11:47 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Well basically Rhythm has repeatedly tried to get me to address the question of the OP which is, to paraphrase, "If, hypothetically speaking, there is another universe where none of our logical laws apply... and they have their own logical laws instead in their place... are those laws logical?" but I'd already addressed it more than once when being repeatedly told to address it throughout this thread.... but what I've really been pushing is that the whole question is ultimately meaningless because it's not even possible in the hypothetical to have even a basic tautology of a universe without the law of identity being possible because all tautologies, definitions and hypotheticals themselves already presuppose the truth of the law of identity. If A does not =A then a hypothetical can't even =A hypothetical and a tautology can't even be tautological. Furthermore Rhythm fails to understand that 2+2=4 must apply to all universes and not just our own because two things and two things being four things is ultimately the same as saying four things is four things or A=A and again that's a law that even alternative universes can't violate. It's basic modal logic. Universes must correspond to logical absolutes such as A=A for them to even be logically possible... not the other way around. You can't have a hypothetical universe where A does not =A because that would be a hypothetical universe that wasn't a hypothetical universe. The whole meaning behind A=A is something is what it is. If that doesn't apply then everything is meaningless. All hypothetical unvierses and alternative laws of logic still presuppose the law of identity/A=A and 2+2=4 and 2+2=2+2 and 4=4, whether there are 'other' logical laws that are 'not our own' or not. Although my strong intuition is that the only logical absolutes that there are apply to all universes and all realities.... after all if there are multiple universes it's still all part of one reality.
Still I accept the possibility, hypothetically, of 'other' alternative 'logical laws' whatever they are, that's hypothetically possible but they must be in addition to absolutes such as the law of identity which must apply to all unvierses, all hypotheticals, all non-hypotheticals, everything. Absolutely every thing. Whether real or imagined. You can't have any thing that isn't any thing. You can't have A= not A. It's also been interesting to note Rhythm has, throughout this thread, repeatedly expressed that he didn't disagree with me whilst continuing to express things I didn't agree with, lol. And you even got confused bullshit like 2+2 can =5 because 'in another universe something else could pop into existence'  That's so fucking confused. 2+2=4 + another thing isn't 2+2=5 it's 2+2=4 + another thing
I agree with you. Simply because even if the law of identity is only true to us as we observe the world with our animal brains, or whatever, we can't really escape our own perceptions, so it's meaningless to wonder what might lie beyond them.
But you are making a mistake when you go ahead and talk about what an universe without any conscious intelligence to observe it would be like. That's irrational in and of itself. It wouldn't exist simply because existence is a concept. Everything is. Qualia is absolute and universal. Without it you have nothing. Literally. RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 16, 2016 at 11:57 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 12:01 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Yeah but you've said you're a solipsist. You don't even believe in objective reality. And more importantly, ultimately even "subjective reality" is objective in the sense of existent and real. All reality is ontologically objective. Ontological subjectivity is a subset of ontological objectivity because all ontology is objective.
If the only objects are subjects and all that exists is our perceptions..... then even if subjects didn't exist.... whatever wouldn't be still wouldn't be, and whatever would be still would be. So the law of identity is still there. It literally cannot be not there. That would equate to A not =A.
This is what I'm saying now too. How can you talk of reality outside of our minds?
It's complicated. But if anything means anything, reality doesn't exist if there's no one *there* to witness it. RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 17, 2016 at 12:03 am
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 12:07 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Meaning is not necessary for existence. Minds are not necessary for things. Subjects are not necessary for objects.
Reality doesn't exist if there's no thing there, not if there's no one there. And of course there can't be no thing there because no thing can't be any thing and no thing can't be there only some thing can be there. No thing can't be anywhere. Only some thing can be somewhere. Something can be there. Nothing can't be there. Something can be. Nothing can't be. RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 17, 2016 at 12:08 am
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 12:09 am by Edwardo Piet.)
To be any thing is to be some thing. To be is to be a thing. To be there is to be a thing that is present somewhere. To not be there is not to be. To not be there is to not be a thing present anywhere. To not be there is to be absent. Etc, etc.
You're being fooled by language, ironically enough.
To talk of an universe absent of qualia is irrational. You don't perceive existence directly, Ham. You process it with your brain. If there was no observer, there'd be no language, no concept of anything. Without concepts you can't experience reality. You can't define it, you can't conceptualize it. It's not there. That's what being there means for us. We can't escape our own minds. You make the mistake of assuming those shadows dancing in the wall of the cave can ever be anything more... They can't.
Without sentience one can't experience reality. Sentience is necessary for experientiality, conceptualization isn't.
But sure, for sake of argument, I'll grant you your premise that conceptualization is necessary to experience reality. Experience isn't necessary for reality. Only for experienced reality. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
