RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 12:42 pm
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 12:45 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Stop telling me I'm strawmanning you and that you agree with me and then saying that in the OP's hypothetical the law of identity doesn't have to hold. You've said that repeatedly, that isn't a strawman, and you're not agreeing with me there you're disagreeing with me there.
Whatever universe is being described in the OP, it doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what other laws it has, it's still a universe being described. A=A. Law of identity. If it's not a universe being described then it's not even a hypothetical. You can't have logical laws without having logical laws. You can't have logical laws without A=A. The OP is not describing a hypothetical universe without the law of identity the OP has failed to describe such a thing because there's a hidden premise that it's saying what it is saying, that A=A and that contradicts there being no logical laws.
There can't be any hypotheticals without A=A. It doesn't matter what universe it is whether hypothetical or actual, existent or nonexistent, possible or impossible.
Whatever universe is being described in the OP, it doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what other laws it has, it's still a universe being described. A=A. Law of identity. If it's not a universe being described then it's not even a hypothetical. You can't have logical laws without having logical laws. You can't have logical laws without A=A. The OP is not describing a hypothetical universe without the law of identity the OP has failed to describe such a thing because there's a hidden premise that it's saying what it is saying, that A=A and that contradicts there being no logical laws.
There can't be any hypotheticals without A=A. It doesn't matter what universe it is whether hypothetical or actual, existent or nonexistent, possible or impossible.
