RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 2:36 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 6, 2016 at 2:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(November 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You can't have a hypothetical without implying the truth of the law of identity. "if X then Y" has to mean "If X then Y".
You can't define your way out of a law that is already implied when you try to define your way out of it.
No shit, Sherlock. You won't shut up long enough about that - which everyone agrees on - in order to see the what people are actually talking about. Nor would you let go of that goddamn bone long enough for me to get to the second leg of the point I was trying to make.
You aren't listening. Ergo, it's pointless to attempt to communicate with you. So I'm done.
Enjoy arguing with yourself.
Rhythm has repeatedly said that it doesn't apply to the hypothetical and I'm saying it does. What I'm repeatedly saying that you agree to implies that it applies to the hypothetical but neither you nor rhythm see it. I keep repeating myself because I'm struggling to make it any clearer.
You can't have a hypothetical without A=A because you can't have anything without A=A. A hypothetical has to be a hypothetical.
If this is a "no shit Sherlock" thing and you two apparently repeatedly agree with it then you need to stop saying that in the hypothetical of the OP the law of identity doesn't apply. It does.
You can't have an irrational axiom without the law of identity.
