On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

No?

Two things and two things is also four things or three things and one thing or one less than five things. They're all labels for the same quantity, which is four.

You misunderstand.  I'm agreeing with you that the law of identity is necessary to all logical universes, simply mentioning that it is not -sufficient- for a designation as a logical universe.  More is required.  

Irrelevant. The OP is still presupposing laws implictly which it attempts to hypothetically deny, but fails to do so because of the implicit presupposition. You can't even have a hypothetical (A) that is a hypothetical (A) without an A (hypothetical) that  =  (is) A (a hypothetical). You can't even have a hypothetical with two things and two things being five things because you can't have a hypothetical where four things (A) are (=) five things (not A).

If that were true, if math and logic were equivalent, we wouldn't need to discuss any of this, we could feed things into a truth machine.  Anything capable of simple addition ought to be able to crack open the mysteries of the universe....and yet.....

You're equivocating again. You're talking about the concepts of math and logic not being the same. It doesn't change the process being the same.

Actually, I'm talking about an alternative universe, where the math that exists and is correct is referent to relationships in that universe, not ours.

Which is you equivocating again.

 Just as the math that exists and is correct in ours is referent to relationships in our universe...but not theirs.

What is referred to is the same. The fact that you are talking about different referents demonstrates that you're just talking about different labels. I'm saying in all universes two things and two things will always be four things. It doesn't matter if an extra thing pops into existence  every time and in that universe they therefore have no concept of "4". That is all utterly irrelevant. Before the extra thing pops into existence it's still four things, not five things. And 2+2 + 1 =/= 2+2 + 0.

Again, you see it that way because of the realtionships between quantities iin -our- universe.  Their universe is different, they would see it differently, and consider you to be wrong.  They could even demonstrate that you were wrong.

No they could not because you're still making a use mention error and equivocating and if they claimed to be able to demonstrate such a thing they'd be equivocating just as much as you are. It doesn't matter how they conceptualize things in their universe, that's all irrelevant. The fact you mention that  "they would see it differently" demonstrates that you're talking about them having a different perspective rather than a different logical reality, the fact you say that they would consider me to be wrong demonstrates that you're talking about them considering the same things to be different rather than things actually being different. Two things and two things simply are four things otherwise someone is equivocating.

When you say that, it shows me that you haven't understood what I'm saying.

That's what you think.

 You do realize that this is a pretty heated discussion within philosophical circles, right, an open question?  You didn't really think that OP came up with this shit out of thin ai, did you?  He aint that bright.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Some philosophers dispute the use/mention distinction too. Some philosophers believe a lot of incorrect things. "Cheese" absolutely is derived from the Old English word "cyse". Cheese absolutely is derived from milk. The only philosophers who disagree with that are either deluded or, far more often, equivocating. It's exactly the same with those who claim that 2+2 can =5 in other universes.

Yes I am aware that the OP didn't come out with this out of thin air. And yes I am aware of his lack of intelligence.

I've debated this exact thing many times before over the years. In fact, many many years ago, when I was 19, I used to take up  your own illogical position.

What does it mean for something to be logical.

Well you eliminate what is not logical, what you are left with, is what is logical. A= not A and 2+2=5 certainly are not logical. They are therefore impossible. Yes even hypothetically. The logical absolutes I am talking about are called The Laws of Thought for a reason. You can't even imagine a hypothetical, or imagine anything at all, that violates them. When you think you have thought of a hypothetical that has violated it you are simply mistaken. It is unviolatable. Just because it's possible to write a sentence where you tautologically say "If the law of identity didn't apply then it wouldn't apply" doesn't mean that such a sentence doesn't already, ironically, presuppose the law of identity by virtue of its being a tautology. Something literally can't exist in any sense whether real or imagined, hypothetical or non-hypothetical, if A= not A. When we say A=A we mean that something is itself. You can't violate that. A hypothetical that isn't a hypothetical is not a hypothetical. Two things and two things that are claimed to be five things is either not actually five things or not actually two things and two things. This is demonstrated by the fact you have to mentally-gymnast yourself by adding the extra thing popping into existence part. Thereby equivocating rather than addressing what I'm saying. It's your way to wriggle out of my words without dealing with what they refer to.

 Could something follow different rules and still be logical.

Sure. It just has to follow the logical absolutes too, that's all.

 The value of examples is not as an existential claim, but a description of the context in which the questions sense and meaning can be illuminated.

I'm just saying they're unimaginainable, unconceptualizable worthless examples. Non-existent examples. What you think is there is not there because you're missing out what's presupposed.

I know what the OP is driving at but my whole point is that he can't successfully come up with any examples no matter how much he tries because it's not that by doing so he would violate the logical absolutes, it's that he can't possibly violate the logical absolutes because they're impossible to violate. If he thinks he has come up with a hypothetical that violates it he is simply mistaken and kidding himself.

So the question is, why does it look like, at least to you guys,--not to me--that he has successfully came up with a hypothetical that violates it? It's because you're looking at the visible text and visible explicit premise of the OP and not considering the invisible implicit premise of the logical absolutes which, logically, absolutely must be presupposed.

In a universe where 2+2=5 (or any other counter-factual or contra-intuitive proposition) -is- true.....can there be a system for determining the truth of the proposition, and if so, is it a logical system?

You don't understand the implications of the non-meaning of your own quesiton. You're asking me whether an alternative universe where something is not what it itself is (or at least counter intuitive laws as opposed to an impossible one) can have beings living in it that have alternative conceptual systems that aim to derive at the truth just like ours do--or in other words they have an alternative conceptual system of logic--and whether their system would be a logical system like ours is.

First of all, your example, "2+2=5", which equates to something being what it isn't, is, once again, a non-example.

Now to deal with other hypothetical counter intuitive laws of logic opposed to that impossible one:

Yes they are logically possible if they don't violate the logical absolutes. Or in other words they're possible if they're logically possible.

Can other beings have alternative conceptualizations? Yes they can but that doesn't deal with the laws themselves. When you're talking about a 'system of logic' you're talking about the concepts rather than the laws. Our system is how we make sense of the absolute laws that apply to all universes. Other universes can have creatures living in it that have other systems that make sense of the same laws. They can also have other laws altogether, but only in addition to the absolutes which we already know, or should know and do know when we understand the logic behind it, but they can't have any logical laws that violate the logical absolutes, regardless of the universe. It's logically impossible. Logical absolutes apply to all universes, that's what makes them absolute. Any thing logically contradictory is not possible in any universe because for any thing to be any thing at all it has to be itself and not not be itself. It has to obey both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. These are beyond-universal laws, these are absolute laws. They are unviolatable. If you think you can have a hypothetical unvierse without them you're simply not talking about what you think you're talking about. A hypothetical universe without such laws wouldn't be a hypothetical universe.

An llogical thing is literally a non-thing. All things must be logical. We call something someone says "illogical" when we're saying that what they're saying makes no sense. All the things that do make sense are the only things that are actual things. They fail to refer to what they think they are referring to. There's nothing illogical about their inability to say something logical. There's nothing illogical. We simply refer to their inability to speak of the logical as their being "illogical."

Why is there no such thing as an illogical contradiction? Because even when something is supposedly "illogical", it can only ever be contradictory logically speaking, not illogically speaking. Not because logic is not all-reaching but because it is all-reaching. That which fails to conform to logic does not exist.

Even that which contradicts logic must do so by virtue of the laws of logic

Our conceptualization of the logical absolutes is merely our own conceptualizaiton of them. But the logical absolutes themselves that we can come to undersatand once we conceptualize them? They're absolute and independent of our success at conceptualizing them.

 The value of the example and the question isn;t limited only to hypothetical universes, ofc...because we could be living in just such a universe.  It may be that there are other rules here, different to our currently known rules, or our rules may be incomplete (leading, for example, to seeming paradoxes).  It;s also true that other systems of inference -do- exist...the western tradition isn't the only tradition.  Are those other traditions logical?

If they're possible, they're logical. Not in all senses, no. I don't mean they're realistic or reasonable. I mean if they're logically possible they're, logically, logically possible. It doesn't matter if they're different logical laws, if they're logical laws they're, logically, logical laws. But they can only exist if they obey logical absolutes.

Basically, any kind of logical laws can exist and all logical laws must be logical if and only if they're based upon logical absolutes that pervade all universes.

The logical absolutes are not omniscient because they're mindless and they cannot have any separate existence from reality, they are reality, and they're not omnipotent because reality itself's logical power is not unlimited: but they're absolutely omnipresent.