On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not the one contradicting myself and the other person and telling them that I'm agreeing with them, here. I'm not the one missing the implication. I'm not the one who started with the insults. I'm not the one who ragequits when someone disagrees with me.

...and I'm not the one who is completely and utterly, despite having it explained ad nauseum, misapplying the law of identity.

P.S.  I'm not ragequitting, I'm simply recognizing that one cannot have a conversation with a brick wall.  You're being as stubbornly wrong as Waldork here, FFS.

You said you agreed that irrational axioms can't be irrational axioms without being irrational axioms. That means that A=A applies to irrational axioms.

If you can't hypothesize something without hypotehsizing something then you can't hypothesize something without A=A applying.

The implications of the law of identity is that the law is absolute. It doesn't matter whether it's a hypothetical or what universe your describing, whatever you are describing you are describing whatever you're describing. You say "no shit Sherlock" but then you fail to see that that is the same as A=A, that that is the same as the law of identity, that whatever you hypotehsize the law of identity is implied. Remember I'm talking about the truth of the law of identity itself as opposed to the concept. I'm talking that something is whatever it is regardless of whether we exist to conceptualize it or not, and regardless of whether it's hypothetical or another universe or not.