On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

Why is incoherent?  Because 2+2=5 in that universe?  That's hardly incoherent, it's just different.

If you don't see why two things and two things aren't five things then there's no hope for you. The universe is irrelevant. Two things and two things are not five things. If another thing pops into existence that's just another thing popping into existence, two things and two things are still four things, four things are still four things, five things are still five things, A=A.



If you think any universe can be hypotehsized where A=A then I'm not the one with slipping sanity. Although in all honesty I think you just don't understand the law of identity. A=A is absolute in all universes. It's not about labels, it's absolute in all universes. Those universes don't have to be existent, they can be possible, and hypothetical. A=A applies to everything. It's a logical absolute. It applies to all hypotheticals, yes, it applies to everything.

 -My- hypothetical invokes a universe with different laws, where 2+2=5.  Is that a logical universe, in your opinion? 

No it's not a logical universe, it's not a universe at all, it's not a hypothetical at all, not anything, because for anything to be anything A has to =A.

A hypothetical is something. It's something hypothesized. A=A. applies to that. It applies to everything.

Rhythm, for the last time, all hypotheticals have an identity because the hypothetical's description is itself its identity, the law of identity A=A applies to all hypotheticals because all hypotheticals are themselves. A=A. The truth of this is why the OP is contradicting itself when it attempts to hypothesize a universe without the law of identity.

You need to realize that there are hidden premises, implicit premises, in addition to the explicit ones written within the OP. There are invisible hidden premises that are unwritten that are implied when the OP presupposes certain truths in describing aforementioned premises. You can't have a premise that is not itself. You can't have a premise that doesn't hold to A=A. And because of this, adding explictly the contradictory statement "the law of identity doesn't apply" on top of that invisible unwritten premise that implies the law of identity, creates a contradictory nonsensical premise that may as well be "sagoasjgosagjsao" which means that the concluding question that is based on that is just as nonsensical and may as well be "asofasogfasio" and my answer may as well be "asifkoasfsaofi" And so may as well be yours, and you are deluded to think that the explicit premises in the OP is all that is being said, when A=A is very much presupposed implicitly despite the OP saying otherwise explicitly.

Ok I'm done now. I may change my mind, I hope not. I try too hard to explain why I'm right when it's not going through. Others say I'm like talking to a brick wall, I feel the same way, and Argument Ad Populum doesn't cut it, bub.