On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

You said it was the same problem I have with your hypothetical. And the problem I have with your hypothetical is that it's flawed. You twisted your own words by claiming to know mine and then not liking it when I told you what that entails.

By 'problem' I mean what Rhythm and I were seeing. You would refuse to entertain the hypothetical *as a hypothetical*.

"The hypothetical" was not a hypothetical. The bare minimum for a hypothetical is that it obeys the law of identity A=A. Yours did not because you said it had none of 'our' (scare quotes intentional) logical laws.

TLOI is prior to a hypothetical not the other way around. You can't have even a tautological hypothetical without TLOI. Tautologies, hypotheticals and everything else is meaningless if A=A is not first presupposed. And 2+2=5 is another failure to presuppose it.

Your examples were failures that made your hypothetical so incoherent it wasn't even a hypothetical. Remove the examples and instead ask "If there was a hypothetical with different logical laws in addition to the law of identity would they be logical?" the answer is yes, because they're logical simply by being logical laws, regardless of if they are our laws or not. If they're logical laws they're laws that are logical. All the examples you gave violated absolute logical laws that apply to all possible and even hypothetical universes. They violated basic modal logic. Or rather--they were unable to violate it because nothing can violate A=A. What happens is you have a hypothetical that is incomplete and when you mention "the hypothetical in this thread" you're actually referring to a bunch of text that is an incomplete hypothetical. "If the law of identity was not possible then the law of identity wouldn't be possible" is not even a successful tautology because all tautologies themselves imply the law of identity. "The law of identity" can be replaced with "A" so the statement becomes "If A was not A then A would not be A" which is just incoherent bullshit. A has to be A. You can't even have a hypothetical universe where that hypothetical universe is not what that universe is and you can't even have a hypothetical universe where two things and two things are not four things because two things and two things are four things otherwise it's not two things and two things... if it's five things it's instead two things and three things or three things and two things. Doesn't fucking mattter what universe it is. Both your examples failed to violate the law of identity even when attempting to hypothesize so. It was a failed hypothetical and a failed violation of A=A and 2+2=4. "If it were possible in another universe then it would be possible in another universe" doesn't work because that statement itself is already obeying A=A and 2+2=4