RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 11:41 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 11:48 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Bob can't be not Bob dude.
You're disagreeing with me by thinking that the law of identity isn't presupposed in all hypotheticals. It is. If we say "If X then Y" then we have to be saying "If X then Y".
When you're talking about a universe with other logical laws you have to be talking about a universe with other logical laws and that implies the law of identity being one of the laws amongst it.
You're already using it when you're saying "If the OP defines a hypothetical universe as one without logical laws then it must be a hypothetical universe without logical laws"... you're already implying TLOI right there.
You're saying such a universe can't have the law of identity because such a universe is defined to be "A" and "A"= universe without the law of identity. But you're saying A=A which implies it so you're not actually saying what you think you're saying.
You're saying "In such a universe A does not =A because A=A".....................
You're disagreeing with me by thinking that the law of identity isn't presupposed in all hypotheticals. It is. If we say "If X then Y" then we have to be saying "If X then Y".
When you're talking about a universe with other logical laws you have to be talking about a universe with other logical laws and that implies the law of identity being one of the laws amongst it.
You're already using it when you're saying "If the OP defines a hypothetical universe as one without logical laws then it must be a hypothetical universe without logical laws"... you're already implying TLOI right there.
You're saying such a universe can't have the law of identity because such a universe is defined to be "A" and "A"= universe without the law of identity. But you're saying A=A which implies it so you're not actually saying what you think you're saying.
You're saying "In such a universe A does not =A because A=A".....................
