On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

-and you can stop there.  I know you want there to be more, there isn't.  Even in this, we have to lay the provision that this is only true, -in this universe-..because fuck me, if a universe can evade logic we can't say -anything- about it, logically.

Universes can't evade logic.

I've already told you why as soon as you say "in this universe the logical laws don't apply" you're already implicitly implying the Law of Identity.

I'm actually not - but it wouldn't -matter- if I were.  I'm just giving it the term that was asked for it.  Whether it can be what it is and not what it is, is not my concern, it's not my hypothetical. 

No it can't that makes no sense.

No one asked if it made sense, and I certainly don't think it does.

You're already describing its identity. It must hold.

I'm only repeating what it has been described as being.  I;m not invoking that law...though I do, when I say, "No, an illogical universe cannot be logical."  If i felt comfortable, or were allowed to step outside the bounds of logical thought in giving the response, I'd say "cheesecake" just like I did in the last silly ass thread about the same silly ass thing. Because why not, right?

You don't get it. You can't say "in this universe the law of identity doesn't apply". I don't give a fuck what universe you imagine, the law of identity transcends all universes and your imagination.

I'm afraid I'm not the person having trouble getting it.  You think I am, because it makes no sense.  No shit..it doesn't make any sense...........

Do you realize yet that when you imagine any universe without the law of identitiy you are already describing a universe with an identity and thereby you have already implied the law of identity and contradicted yourself?

Describing a universe with an identity and implying that the law of identity holds in this case or all cases are not the same thing.  

It's not possible for there to be a universe without the law of identity. I already gave you four premises and a conclusion to show you why that's the case. You said I had strawmanned you because you said we weren't discussing universes without the law of identity. That completely contradicts the OP and all the times you have said that the universe described in the OP doesn't have our logical laws.

Oh for the love of god, who cares?  That's not the conjecture, that's not the position, I've expressed no such opinion on the matter whatsoever, and you're tilting at windmills.  Gratz, OP wins.  You aren't strawmanning me nitwit..you're strawmanning OP, because you don't know how to address the insensible, lol.  It's got you tied in a knot.  

Let me lay this out, again, super simple.  OP did not ask you whether or not such a universe existed or could exist.  OP asked you whether or not the -rules- of that hypothetical universe whose existence was to be taken as a fact in the thought experiment -were logical-.  All your arguments regarding whether or not such a universe exists or could exist....meaningless straw. They may even be true, I certainly agree with you....but that doesn't change the fact that you have failed to address the op argument, and instead babbled on about something else for all of this time. Further, it's all pointless nonsense anyway, in context. That something does not exist, does not imply that it cannot be logical. I can come up with all sorts of logical shit -that doesn't exist-...like a clock radio that tickles my scrote while it fries me an egg...so why did you even think that would be relevant?

The ops question is simple, despite it's tortured formulation. If the rules were different, would they be logical rules. I say no, you say no, -logic- says no. Whether or not the rules could be different, or any place in which the rules -were- different exists, is irrelevant, it's no either way, because as you've been harping on for some time now, the law of identity is a thing, and to be logical, one has to conform to it. That;s all there is to the entirety of the OP's question. There is no more. Any more is just straw, arguing about and speaking to some other thing, some other conjecture, some other question.

I was -trying- to help you save yourself the heartache. Prepare to be called some sort of axiom "sexist" by OP....I'm not even kidding.

You don't get it. There is no possible universe without the law of identity.

Stop

You don't get it.

No it isn't. There is no EVEN HYPOTHETICAL universe without the law of identity because you're hypothesiszing the law of identity itself when you say you aren't even when you think you aren't.

In the OP's hypothetical, it is, full stop.  If you keep saying "no no no no, such a universe is impossible"..you aren't arguing against the op's actual position, you're pitching straw.  The ops position, is that it might be possible for illogical laws to be logical.  Argue that...you know, the ops -actual- position. The point of contention. The question asked.

"this universe doesn't have the law of identitiy"= "the identity of this universe is one without the law of identity"=nonsense.

There is no even hypothetical universe without the law of identity in the same way that there's no even hypothetical universe in which A=not A.

...staaaaaaaahp.