On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

"2+2=5" means four things is equal to five things or something that is not something else is equal to the something else that it is not or A=not A. It's violation in identity. If when you say "2+2=5" two doesn't mean two plus doesn't mean plus and five doesn't mean five then you may as well have said "sakgsngsakgjasigasji" to which my answer is "isagasigasjgiajsiajgia".

Yes, I know it's a violation of the law of identity, and if we're allowed to circumvent those same logical rules in response, my answer is and has been "cheesecake".  

Nevertheless, the proposition regards a universe in which such laws are not in effect anyway, whenever we refer to the, op can and wll easily and very rationally say -"no, different universe, that particular law is not in effect" and can do so even if he uses -some- of our laws. A universe in which 2+2 does actually, demonstrably, yield 5, in each and every case the terms being employed meaning exactly what we mean by them, here, and despite those same terms and that same operaion yielding 4 here..simply yielding a different sum because, surprise surprise, it's a different universe with different rules, where different shit happens - like, for example..extra things popping into existence when you add two and two.   

It's not even a successful hypothetical or premise.

I know, but the existence of such a universe, or it's violation of our logical laws is not the point of contention anyway, it's explicitly -stated- to violate our laws...it has different laws, it's own laws.  

"Imagine a hypothetical universe that is not itself because the law of identity doesn't apply" Doesn't actually mean anything. It's not even a premise. You can't have "A= not A" as a premise.

Again, I know, a difficult question, asking us to employ logic towards the illogical, but that;s what the OP asked for, so at least try.  Stonewalling over something explicitly acknowledged but not necessary, and objecting to something other than the point of contention...that does not speak to the question asked...is not rational, it's straw. It may be true, the hypothetical universe referred to is, by the ops own admission, not logical with respect to what we call logic, here..unfortunately, it's still straw. Being right about the specifics of something, doesn't mean that you haven't employed a fallacy in the manner in which you've used them.

-On the brightside, despite my disgust with the OP and the OP's proposition...I think that this exercise has at least some value, because more often than not, the sorts of propositions we handle here are fundamentally flawed. We often overthink and overcomplicate, which leads to confused responses from many posters..and ofc, provides the ops of those sorts of posts with all they need to keep trolling the shit out of logic and reason, and us. The o[p continues to repeat the poposition, acrossed the thread and across threads, because..and this is actually true (even a broken clock is right twice a day)...we haven;t actually addressed he op's proposition for what it is, in trying to first make it more sensible, and then knock down that much more sensible..but still straw, proposition of our own creation. The op has not proposed -that- such a univers exists, the op has explicitly acknowledged that it is only hypothetical. The op has not, in the sense that you are trying to approach, insisted that such a hypothetical universe is logical, precisely the opposite, OP has acknowledged that it -does not- operate on the rules you call logic. The op only asks whether or not, despite of all of that, acknowledged openly, those rules, those -different rules- themselves are logical, or can be called logical. Th OP thinks they can, by reference to the dictionary entry he linked.