On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

In the hypothetical universe, it's not a hypothetical.  It's a fact.  The identity (see, look ma!, identity, indentity identity identity) of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. Not 2, not 3, and 4 is right out.  5.

You already admitted that that would violate the law of identity so you can't have it alongside it.

Ham....you need to quote as having done so.  Because you might be mixing up your contexts, lol.  OFC it violates the law of identity, as it applies in this universe.  That isn't in dispute between us.  However, if, in that universe, 2+2=5....the identity of the sum of two and two -is- 5, and cannot be -not 5-..assuming the law holds there as it applies in that universe.

I hope you realize logically contradictory things cannot exist. Even in the hypothetical. You can't even imagine a square circle, you can mention it. You can say "if there were square circles there would be square circles", but such thing cannot actually be imagined or conceived. You're saying "If there was not A there would be not A" but you can't even have a tautology like that without A=A.

Unfortunately, we're not referring to a logically contradictory thing.  The reason that you can;t have a square circle is becvause there s no such thing, that;s not what the term circle refer to.  In the universe we are talking about...2+2 -does- equal 5.  You can have that, in factm, in my example, it;s all you can have, because identity holds...as it applies there.

2+2=4 is a tautology.

Here, by reference to the relationships between quantities as they are expressed here.  Yes.

2+2=5 is a logical contradiction.

Here, yes.

Again, as Bennyboy said, you could call it "2+2=5" but it wouldn't actually be 2+2=5. 2+2=5 is impossible.

Here, yes.

It would have to be 4.

Here....yes....

Two things and two things would have to be four things because that's just another way of saying that two things and two things would have to be two things and two things. That A has to be A.

Here.......yes........

You just moved the goalposts. You're introducing identity into 2+2=5 now, because you failed to explain how you can hypothesize something without hypothesizing something (because you can't explain that, no one can explain that, it's not logically possible), without A=A. Even though you already admitted that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity.

Again you swing and miss.  I introduced it, loooong ago..explicitly, because you demanded it, to show you that it doesn't matter if we include it, as I've stated about a dozen times now.  In the hopes that..if I included it, since you insist it cannot be ommitted, you wqould stop bickering -about- it...and answer the fucking question posed by the godamned hypothetical, in the hopes that you would cease to object with a mountain of unecessary straw about how it just can;t be so because identity has to be included, hell or high water! Well, it is included, now what?

If you're giving a hypothetical universe an identity, you're applying A=A to it. If 2+2=5, as you already admitted, you're violating that.

Again, in that universe, 2=2 does equal 5, 5 is the identity of the sum, and it cannot be 5 and not 5.  It doesn;t violate the law, the law is simply being applied to the product of other, different laws...differences which have always explicitly been the case, in every example.

Hypothetical universes that violate logical laws cannot exist. Nothing can exist that is nothing. Everything has to be something. Every thing has to be a thing. Every A has to be A. Every 2+2 has to be 2+2 every 4 has to be 4, and every 2+2 has to be 4 is just another way of saying that every 2+2 has to be 2+2 or every 4 has to be 4 or every A has to be A or every something has to be something.

Again, no one; asked whether or not such a universe can exist.  Not the question...arguments to that effect are straw.

Fun to see you wrestle with yourself, to see you think that the OP can define a tautology without 2+2=4 and without A=A when tautologies already presuppose the truth that 2+2=4 or A=A. 2+2=4 is just another way of saying 4=4 or 2+2=2+2 or A=A. You can't have a tautology without A=A.

You can't have a hypothetical tautology that A=A because all tautologies are based on the most fundamental tautology of all: That A=A.

And a=a, in my example..it's just that a..in that universe, is 5, not 4.  Mostly, because it;s a different universe with different laws where, surprise surprise, different shit happens when you add a quantity of two to a quantity of two.

The only question asked, the actual point of contention...the only thing you can refer to and -not- pitch straw..is whether or not such rules as those could be called logical. It really has been that simple, all this time, a giant, steaming, illogical, equivocation over the term logical. Not the possibility of universes. Not the universality of logical laws. Those things are irrelevant, regardless of whther such a universe is possible...and defying everything you know of logic in this universe..there, 2+2 does equal 5...the rules that lead to that aren't the same rules, they aren't logical rules. They need their own term. Denying the possibility of such laws does not answer the question, it doesn't even approach the question, and you don't have to do so to answer the question. If it's all true, they're just not logical laws. Even if the ruleset as a whole includes identity, that single inclusion is not sufficient condition to classify the ruleset as logical. Inisting that it be included, and in fact including it, doesn;t change that, it doesn;t make them logical, and it;s inclusiion by itself does not make them the same, and so self contradictory with respect to their being different.