(November 6, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not having any trouble addressing a nonsensical question. Maybe it's just you?
Saying that this universe has different laws is not a self contradiction even if we say it includes the law of identity.
I agree. But the OP doesn't say that, the OP says it has none of our laws.
The OP also says 2+2=5 and that cannot be so if the Law of Identity holds.
So when the OP asks if such a premise is logical I say "What premise? You have made no coherent premise. It's not illogical by virtue of having alternative logical laws that make no sense to us, it's illogical by failing to be a premise that describes such laws because it contradicts itself by implicitly saying that it doesn't have the Law of Identity whilst at the same time presupposing such a law being such a law is absolute and transcends all universes. A=A means whatever universes there are, whatever laws they have, they must be whatever they are and have whatever laws they have. A=A. Whatever is being described it must be being described. Due to this the OP has failed to even create a hypothetical so there's no question to address because the question is based on the failed hypothetical.
Right, now I'm going to quote where I demonstrated with a question of my own why the premise of the OP falls to pieces. And you can address that.
It does no good to tell me to "stop" because why would I? I'm entitled to discuss this here, you don't have to respond to me, but if you respond I'm entitled to respond back. I don't agree that you agree with me because I don't agree that the premise in the OP can be addressed at all because I don't agree that such a premise has been successfuly made.
What we disagree on:
We disagree on whether all hypotheticals in all universes presuppose the truth of the law of identity.
We disagree on whether the OP has successfully made a hypothetical.
It seems sometimes that we disagree that 2+2=5 is a violation of the law of identity but it's not clear because you're contradicting yourself there. You've said that it violates it but you've also said that the law of identity doesn't imply that 2+2=4. Therein lies a contradiction. That you don't see the contradiction demonstrates that you don't understand why 2+2=5 violates the law of identity and why 2+2=4 and you don't understand the full extent of what the truth of the law of identity implies. When we accept A=A in this universe and we fully understand the implications of that we realize that it applies in all universes and nothing can even be hypothesized and no premises can even be made without it. Any time people think it's not implied they're mistaken.
Right, now I'm going to quote where I demonstrated with a question of my own why the premise of the OP falls to pieces. And you can address that.
