RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 11:07 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 11:29 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Whatever lives in a universe where, when you add two things to two things, an extra thing pops into existence, would not only be able to comprehend the question they would be able to demonstrate the truth of the proposition, and would have a system of math where 2+2=5 without any redefinition of any concept contained in the operation.
Don't get hung up on whether or not such a universe does or could exist, don't get hung up on the foolish notion that stipulating a universe implies that any law of this universe, such as identity, holds. Yes, it's nonsense here, or anywhere that what we call logic holds. Yes, it's illogical by reference to the very same so far as we're concerned and can determine.
Speak the the point of contention. Can such be a statement logical. Are the rules which lead to 2+2=5 being an accurate statement of the state of things as they are in that alternate universe in which it can and does happen just so, logical rules?
Yes, in the sense that the op wishes to call them as such, no, in the sense that they do not conform to what we call as such. This state of being both true and false, ofc, is due to it's being a fucking equivocation (that's -why- equivocation is a fallacy)..nothing else, not some complicated wondering on the possibility of alternate universes with alternate rules, or a consideration of whether or not our rules hold in all universes, or whether or not a universe with another set of rules would be coherent, or whether or not an entity in that universe would be able to comprehend and utilize those rules. It's just not that complicated. Just an equivocation, right from the start, left to hang and tying some of us in knots because we attempt to make the insensible sensible, the illogical logical. Let the poor guy have his alternate system, and since he -insists- that it's different, insist that he use a different term for it. Otherwise we can't even consider it with -our- logic. If the term "logical" refers to two different sets of rules, with different outcomes, we can;t know..when the term is employed, which we are talking about, and so we can;t know whether or not our statements regarding the term even -speak- to what is being referred to -by- the term. Which is probably why it's so easy to call these objections raised to the very notion nonsensical themselves, since, by allowing equivocation, we allow the proposer to slip back and forth between different senses of the term at will and as is necessary to evade valid criticism. So now, here we are, and this silly idea has gotten another ten pages of play after having already been fucking executed elsewhere, I hope you're proud of yourselves. Pigeons win if you so much as play the game.
Don't get hung up on whether or not such a universe does or could exist, don't get hung up on the foolish notion that stipulating a universe implies that any law of this universe, such as identity, holds. Yes, it's nonsense here, or anywhere that what we call logic holds. Yes, it's illogical by reference to the very same so far as we're concerned and can determine.
Speak the the point of contention. Can such be a statement logical. Are the rules which lead to 2+2=5 being an accurate statement of the state of things as they are in that alternate universe in which it can and does happen just so, logical rules?
Yes, in the sense that the op wishes to call them as such, no, in the sense that they do not conform to what we call as such. This state of being both true and false, ofc, is due to it's being a fucking equivocation (that's -why- equivocation is a fallacy)..nothing else, not some complicated wondering on the possibility of alternate universes with alternate rules, or a consideration of whether or not our rules hold in all universes, or whether or not a universe with another set of rules would be coherent, or whether or not an entity in that universe would be able to comprehend and utilize those rules. It's just not that complicated. Just an equivocation, right from the start, left to hang and tying some of us in knots because we attempt to make the insensible sensible, the illogical logical. Let the poor guy have his alternate system, and since he -insists- that it's different, insist that he use a different term for it. Otherwise we can't even consider it with -our- logic. If the term "logical" refers to two different sets of rules, with different outcomes, we can;t know..when the term is employed, which we are talking about, and so we can;t know whether or not our statements regarding the term even -speak- to what is being referred to -by- the term. Which is probably why it's so easy to call these objections raised to the very notion nonsensical themselves, since, by allowing equivocation, we allow the proposer to slip back and forth between different senses of the term at will and as is necessary to evade valid criticism. So now, here we are, and this silly idea has gotten another ten pages of play after having already been fucking executed elsewhere, I hope you're proud of yourselves. Pigeons win if you so much as play the game.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
