On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

We actually do..  I think it's irrational, unreasonable, meaningless. Nevertheless, it exists.

Hence we don't agree completely on it. So "actually we do" is false.

OFC I don't agree with you on the things which are false by simple reference to their existence in this very thread.  I'd have to be a complete moron.

I'm not talking about the mentioning of the hypotheticals I'm talking about the use of the hypotheticals. Yes the words of the hypothetical exist in this thread but the hypothetical fails to do what a hypothetical is supposed to do. It's incoherent. You can't have a hypothetical that hypothesizes the nonexistence of all of our logical laws when that includes the law of identity which is already presupposed in the hypothetical because it's presupposed in everything and it's an absolute logical law, it's a logical absolute, not merely one of "our" laws.

What's the point in bickering over the actuality of identity to which w both agree when it has nothing to do with the question asked?

We don't agree that we both agree. You keep telling me that something can be hypothesized without presupposing the law of identity, but it cant, because something can't be hypothessized without being hypothesized, without A=A.

 No point at all, but obviously, I;m incapable of helping you crawl out of the hole and so I point and laugh, and you're incapable of addressing the question asked..so you bicker with someone who agrees with you about identity.

Putting the blame on me isn't helpful. This is a two way thing. We're as stubborn as each other and we disagree about agreeing on everything. We disagree that the nature of identity is relevant to hypotheticals.

Maybe you're just a better man than I, Ham, lol. / shrugs

It's not a question of better. It's like, okay you're losing patience, but so what? What is the purpose in the jerk off emoticons? Are you just doing it for your own amusement? I can never understand it when anyone loses patience in a debate. I could argue about everything forever, but when you continue to do so -- it takes two to argue-- you're being just as stubborn as I am, and your losing patience in-between is not my problem. I enjoy every minute of it. If you want time out, say.

I am, yes, I'd enjoy it more if you could have a rational conversation about the point of contention, but failing that, so long as you persist, all that's left are jokes.

We're clearly not going to agree that the law of identity is relevant to all hypotheticals and presupposed in all of them, are we? We're also clearly never going to agree that two things and two things are always four things because it's the same thing or IOW it's based on the law of identity is true in all hypothetical and actual universes, A=A, are we?

I don't take any of it personally, take heart.  It's a game to me, including trash talking.  I know you;re stubborn.  You;re actually falling nto the same business you fel into last time with that argument you reminded me of, lol.  You think you;re so damned right you can;t realize that I'm not telling you that your wrong, just that what you're right about is irrelevant to the question proposed by me, or the OP.

Hey dude, I was right last time too. If we define "God" to mean "the universe" then God exists if by "God exists" we mean the universe exists, and so those who believe in the universe are theists if all we mean by that is that they believe in the universe. It's a retarded and ridiculous argument because the premises and definitions are silly, but the argument is still valid given that the premises are true.

]

And yet it doesn't matter how we arrange it... four things is the same amount of things as two things and two things.

Right, and in that universe, five things is the same as two things and two things.  Take it or leave it.

Correction. You mean "Five things" refers to two things and two things, two things and two things are still not five things.

I do, it's just irrelevant.

You said that the hypothetical of the OP is right here in this thread, no it isn't, the mentioning of it is. So yes it is relevant. 

One of the truths of math, in that hypothetical universe, is that 2+2=5.

Two things and two things can't be more than two things and two things. 5 things is not more or less then two things and two things then it's 4 things.