RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 7, 2016 at 9:49 am
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2016 at 10:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
You're still ignoring that in a universe with -different laws-...that's the hypothetical, the hypothetical completely evades your insistence by default..it doesn't have to hold....and that even if it does hold, it will still be referent to whatever -is- in a universe that is different. If, as has been repeatedly explained to you, despite your inability to comprehend how it might be and despit the fact that it is not such here, the identity of the sum of 2+2 -is- 5 in that universe...then the law of identity holding in that universe gives us a sum of 5, not 4, 5. Always 5, never not 5. Not as a matter of relabeling what we mean by the numbers, not as a matter of relabeling what we mean by the operation - that -is- what happens, there..that -is- the relationship between quantities...there. That it conflicts with the relationship here is a complete non-issue, ofc it does, it's a -different- universe.
None of these logical laws exist in a vacuum, and by themselves they are meaningless. That's why you can't say, for example, that the law of identity states that 2+2=4. It does';t. The law of identity, -combined- with laws governing the relationships between quantities..means that 2+2=4. Change the latter, and you could change what identity refers to. They exist in reference to each other and by way of describing relationships to truth. Which is the OP's entire point. If truth were different, elsewhere, wouldn;t the rules governing how we arrive at truth be different? If that were the case, would "their logic" be different from "our logic"...and still -be- logical?
None of these logical laws exist in a vacuum, and by themselves they are meaningless. That's why you can't say, for example, that the law of identity states that 2+2=4. It does';t. The law of identity, -combined- with laws governing the relationships between quantities..means that 2+2=4. Change the latter, and you could change what identity refers to. They exist in reference to each other and by way of describing relationships to truth. Which is the OP's entire point. If truth were different, elsewhere, wouldn;t the rules governing how we arrive at truth be different? If that were the case, would "their logic" be different from "our logic"...and still -be- logical?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
