RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 8:15 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 8:19 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 5, 2016 at 11:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote:Hammy Wrote: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.
Okay this is my point. You're 100% wrong here. The OP tries and fails to hypothesize a universe without the law of identity. It's impossible to hypotehsize that.
You're ignoring the hidden implicit premise in the OP which is "The Law of Identity must hold".
ALL PREMISES OF ANY KIND imply that. Even all hypothetical premises. You can't hypothesize ANYTHING without first implying the truth of the law of identity.
Quote: 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.
No, you're strawmanning me. I'm not merely saying that such a universe is impossible in actuality I'm saying such a universe is impossible to describe even hypotehtically and the OP has failed to do so.
Quote: 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.
What you don't understand is that the OP is implicitly saying "In hypotehtical universe X2 there are different logical laws, except the law of identity which must exist."
That's implied. It doesn't matter if the OP is trying to hypothesize universes without any of 'our' logical laws. By describing ANY universe at all it automatically presupposes the law of identity.
Rhythm Wrote:me Wrote:"this universe doesn't have the law of identitiy"= "the identity of this universe is one without the law of identity"=nonsense....staaaaaaaahp.
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.
Because what I said is 100% true?
When the OP tries to describe a universe without the law of identity it is doing the same thing as describing a universe with an identity of not having an identity... so it fails to even describe what it's trying to describe.
The OP is doing the equivalent of saying "The universe I am describing has no identity only not really actually it has one."
I don't think you seem to understand that a nonsensical description fails to describe anything. It's not simply that the OP is wrong, it's worse than wrong. The OP may as well be "jasgfasogjasgo".
