RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 7:30 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Correct Bennyboy. Dweeble dobble indeed hence the "jsagosagjasgosa"
Thanks for making me feel understood. It indeed wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 makes as little sense as there being square circles. And anyone who tells me that there can be a universe where 2+2=5, in the same sense we mean it, and that it would have that identity and not just be labelled differently or in another language, is talking out of their arse as much as anyone who says that square circles can be in other universes, even hypotheticals. "If square circles existed then square circles would exist", sorry, failed hypothetical, you just said the equivalent of "If something that was logically impossible was not logically impossible then it would not logically be impossible" or "if A was not A then it would not be A", but that makes no sense because there's not even a hypothetical where "A" could be "not A" there is not "If A could not be A", the very fact there's an "if" at all presupposes "if=if" or "A=A".
It's like saying if something was nothing it would be nothing, well, no, nothing can't be. "A" represents "something". "Circles" represents "circles", "squares" represents "squares", "square circles" represents nothing. Nonexistence cannot be represented. It's nothing more than a word for that which cannot be represented. There is "nothing" but there isn't nothing. There isn't even hypothetically a nothing. There's only hypothetically, and actually, a "nothing". You can label or mention, "Nothing", "not A" or "square circles", but you can't even imagine nothing, not A or square circles, such things don't even exist as hypotheticals. So there
(same goes for 2+2=5 and for the same reasons... theres "2+2=5" but there isn't 2+2=5. There's "nothing" or "square circles" but there isn't nothing or square circles. Use/mention distinction).
Thanks for making me feel understood. It indeed wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 makes as little sense as there being square circles. And anyone who tells me that there can be a universe where 2+2=5, in the same sense we mean it, and that it would have that identity and not just be labelled differently or in another language, is talking out of their arse as much as anyone who says that square circles can be in other universes, even hypotheticals. "If square circles existed then square circles would exist", sorry, failed hypothetical, you just said the equivalent of "If something that was logically impossible was not logically impossible then it would not logically be impossible" or "if A was not A then it would not be A", but that makes no sense because there's not even a hypothetical where "A" could be "not A" there is not "If A could not be A", the very fact there's an "if" at all presupposes "if=if" or "A=A".
It's like saying if something was nothing it would be nothing, well, no, nothing can't be. "A" represents "something". "Circles" represents "circles", "squares" represents "squares", "square circles" represents nothing. Nonexistence cannot be represented. It's nothing more than a word for that which cannot be represented. There is "nothing" but there isn't nothing. There isn't even hypothetically a nothing. There's only hypothetically, and actually, a "nothing". You can label or mention, "Nothing", "not A" or "square circles", but you can't even imagine nothing, not A or square circles, such things don't even exist as hypotheticals. So there
(same goes for 2+2=5 and for the same reasons... theres "2+2=5" but there isn't 2+2=5. There's "nothing" or "square circles" but there isn't nothing or square circles. Use/mention distinction).
