On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

 
If what we "disagree" on is it's existence, even as it stares you in the face in thread, it's not a matter of disagreement so much as a matter of your slipping sanity.

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.

Why is incoherent?  Because 2+2=5 in that universe?  That's hardly incoherent, it's just different.  -My- hypothetical invokes a universe with different laws, where 2+2=5.  Is that a logical universe, in your opinion? 

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.

I keep telling you that identity is irrelevant, to the hypothetical, by proposing it, with the same result, that 2+2=5, and asking you whether or not the ruleset which leads to that being true is logical.  

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.

Who's blaming you?  If I were a smarter guy maybe I'd have hit upon the way to help you get passed the logjam?

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.

The purpose of jerkoff emoticons is the same as the purpose of words and letters to the same effect.  Would you like to piss and moan about that, instead of address the question at hand?  

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?

You're the only person who says any such thing.  Straw.  Whether or not the law of identity holds in -this- hypothetical is irrelevant to the question asked, as I have explained..at length, multiple times.

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

Not here, no, but there, they are.  Take it or leave it.  

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. 

No, I haven't, you moron.  I've been arguing against the conclusion desired from this hypothetical for many pages more than this thread has existed. Get your shit together.

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.

In the hypothetical universe two things and two things is five things.  Not that this matters, since the question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not such a universe is possible, but whether or not rules that would lead to such being true -are logical-.