On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Alex

No. 2 things and 2 things is the same thing as 4 things. 2 and 2 is the same as 4. 3 and 1 is also the same as 4.

@ Rhythm

You're talking about the concept of the law of identity rather than the law itself. The law itself is absolute. The fact that something is what it is is true regardless of whether we conceptualize that.

Regardless of what the other universes are: Whatever they are they will be whatever they are. That's the law of identity and that is true whether we exist to conceptualize it, or other beings exist in other universes to conceptualize it or not. It would be true even if no beings existed in any universe at all and if there was no such thing as concepts. Concepts don't have to exist for the absolute fact that we refer to when we conceptualize them to be true.

If no beings existed to conceptualize the law of identity at all it would be true by virtue of the truth of the law of identity (as opposed to the existence of the concept itself) and what it refers to (that something is what it is) that no beings would exist to conceptualize the law of identity. There would be no concept of the law of identity, no minds to speak of or refer to the law of identity... but it would still be the case that that was the case.

And no minds have to exist to say "two things and two things is the same as four things" for two things and two things to be the same as four things. 2+2 is 4 is the same in all universes. 2+2=4 is as absolute as 1=1 or A=A. You don't need to conceptualize the truth of what the concepts of those things refer to for the things that they refer to to be true.

I explained this rather well I think

The Law of Identity is an absolute logical law that everything else has to apply to: Things have to be themselves; otherwise those things don't exist. A=A otherwise there is no A. What universe it is or even whether it's hypothetical or not, is irrelevant. Even when you're hypothesizing you have to at least be hypothesizing. A has to=A. You can mention "2+2=5" but that's just labelling, you can't actually actively hypothesize such a thing: such a thing is as unconceptualizable as a square circle is. We can conceptualize the words "square circle" or we can write the symbols "2+2=5" but we can't actually conceptualize--or hypothesize--square circles or two things and two things being five things; this is why the use/mention distinction is important.

The act of hypothesizing itself exists in reality just like everything else does. Our imagination exists in our brain, whether we can imagine something or not is something we do and what we do is relevant to what exists (everything/ every thing (which is what "everything" is) is relevant to what exists; ontology is more fundamental than epistemology. You can't have a proper theory of knowledge without a proper theory of truth and you can't have a proper theory of truth without a proper theory of existence and reality)... we can't imagine the unimaginable, we can't hypothesize the unhypothezizable, we can't suppose the unsupposable, we can write down the words "if there were square circles there would be square circles" or "if 2+2 was 5 then it would be 5" but it's not something we can actually conceptualize or hypothesize, all we're conceptualizing and hypothesizing is a tautology and a bunch of words. It's not even possible to hypothesize or imagine such a tautology without obeying the law of identity because all tautologies are based on the law of identity--A=A. The fact we can say "if X then Y" doesn't mean we've actually hypotheszied or conceived of "if X then Y".... it actually has to have a meaning. "If there were square circles then there would be square circles" or "if 2+2=5 then 2+2=5" is completely meaningless. It's basically saying "If something impossible was not impossible then it wouldn't be impossible but it is impossible but still if it wasn't it wouldn't be." It's just talking in circles and complete nonsense. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a hypothetical it's a string of words attempting a hypothetical and failing. You can't even violate the law of identity if you try... because even when you say "If the law of identity was impossible then the law of identity would be impossible" that's an expression of "if A was A then A would be A" where "A" represents the impossibility of the law of identity... but why would A be A if A was A? Because of the truth of the law of identity, because A=A. So even a tautological attempt to hypotehsize the non-truth of the law of identity, even an attempt to create a hypothetical tautology where it's impossible fails to do so because that tautology itself, like all tautologies, is just another expression of A=A, it's just another expression of the law of identity itself.