On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

Yawn.

That already presupposes the law of identity. Any description of a universe at all has an identity.

-and so what, again.....the op wants a coherent universe, if we place the law of identity there, referent to what occurs in their universe when two quantities of two things yields five quantities of that thing, in order to make something follow and give us something to talk about.....but all of the other rules are different, so that..for example...two quantities of two things can yield the sum of five things...is that sufficient condition to call those rules, whatever they are, logical rules?

Not without them being irrational hypotheticals.

Do you think we disagree on this, or?

You're missing the implication. It's because you agree on that that you must also realize that you're implicitly agreeing that all hypothetical universes must have the law of identity.

The fact you can't have irrational hypotheticals without them being irrational hypotheticals means all irrational hypotheticals must adhere to the law of identity. Don't give me this "not in this hypothetical universe" crap. You can't even have a hypothetical universe without the law of identity. You can't have anything anywhere, regardless of the universe, without that very "anything anywhere" being anything anywhere. Without A=A.