RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 9:11 pm
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 9:14 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Is your hypothetical universe with its laws logical, OP? No, your hypothetical unvierse has been mentioned as a bunch of symbols but has failed to even been hypothesized, your hypothetical presupposes that it is your hypothetical, it presuppoes that is is something being defined, any tautology used to back itself as a premise presupposes the LOI as does everything else, and so when your hypothetical says that it doesn't it contradicts itself and falls apart. I can't even answer whether such a universe is logical because such a universe has failed to be even hypothetisized. All you've done is tried and attempted to do so and shown us a bunch of meaningless symbols without realizing that it's meaningless not just because it's different to "our" logic, but also because it presupposes one of "our" laws, the law of identity whilst explictly claiming to do otherwise.
In a sense I could say that your unvierse is 100% illogical because it's illogical in the sense of non-logical, or not logical, because it can't be logical because it can't be anything. Because it can't exist even as a hypothetical because self-contradictory things can't exist even as hypotheticals, you can't even imagine a square-circle. You can't even imagine a universe without the law of identity or without absolute truths that presuppose it like 2+2=4. 2+2=5 invalidates the law of identity which means your hypothetical can't exist as what it claims to be explicitly, it has to exist with the law of identity implicitly and hidden, and with it misrepresenting itself by claiming to explictly be something which is self-contradictorily implicitly presupposing otherwise by virtue of existing even as a hypothetical. It can't exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be defined as a hypothetical without the law of identity without being a hypothetical without the law of identity, which would mean it was a hypothetical with one.
A hypothetical defined without the law of identity has the identity of not having one. Please understand that it's impossible to define anything at all or have a hypothetical at all without presupposing the law of identity. And please understand that 2+2=4 is just an alternative way of saying 4=4 or A=A. It's just the law of identity again. You can't imagine something logically impossible. You can't imagine a square circle, you can't imagine A= not A. You can image the WORDS "a square circle" or "A= not A" you can label it, but you can't imagine it itself. And in exactly the same way, because we're talking logical/mathematical absolutes here (math is just logic in numbers and logic is just math in text) 2+2=4 as A=A and as all bachelors are unmarried and 2+2 does not = 5 as A does not = mpt A and no bachelors are married.
2+2=4 is a tautology. A=A is a tautology. The law of identity is the fundamental truth that all tautologies have to be true and the most fundamental of all is A=A or 1=1.
It doesn't matter what universe it is, A=A, bachelors are always unmarried, there are no square circles and 2+2=4 (talking base 10 here), period.
In a sense I could say that your unvierse is 100% illogical because it's illogical in the sense of non-logical, or not logical, because it can't be logical because it can't be anything. Because it can't exist even as a hypothetical because self-contradictory things can't exist even as hypotheticals, you can't even imagine a square-circle. You can't even imagine a universe without the law of identity or without absolute truths that presuppose it like 2+2=4. 2+2=5 invalidates the law of identity which means your hypothetical can't exist as what it claims to be explicitly, it has to exist with the law of identity implicitly and hidden, and with it misrepresenting itself by claiming to explictly be something which is self-contradictorily implicitly presupposing otherwise by virtue of existing even as a hypothetical. It can't exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be defined as a hypothetical without the law of identity without being a hypothetical without the law of identity, which would mean it was a hypothetical with one.
A hypothetical defined without the law of identity has the identity of not having one. Please understand that it's impossible to define anything at all or have a hypothetical at all without presupposing the law of identity. And please understand that 2+2=4 is just an alternative way of saying 4=4 or A=A. It's just the law of identity again. You can't imagine something logically impossible. You can't imagine a square circle, you can't imagine A= not A. You can image the WORDS "a square circle" or "A= not A" you can label it, but you can't imagine it itself. And in exactly the same way, because we're talking logical/mathematical absolutes here (math is just logic in numbers and logic is just math in text) 2+2=4 as A=A and as all bachelors are unmarried and 2+2 does not = 5 as A does not = mpt A and no bachelors are married.
2+2=4 is a tautology. A=A is a tautology. The law of identity is the fundamental truth that all tautologies have to be true and the most fundamental of all is A=A or 1=1.
It doesn't matter what universe it is, A=A, bachelors are always unmarried, there are no square circles and 2+2=4 (talking base 10 here), period.
