RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 7, 2016 at 8:10 pm
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2016 at 8:36 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 7, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: If they were in some sense logical then I think it would be correct or useful to call them logical, yes. Could these different rules exist without A=A? No.Ham, stop, include identity if you like, I certainly would.....is the inclusion of that particular rule, which has been included in all previous examples of mine and this example...sufficient condition to call the rules logical;. What if, -in this universe-..those newer, more accurate rules yielded 2+2=5? See why it never mattered, now?
Quote:The problem was every time until now you've spoke not only of another set of rules but also a set of rules where either A does not =A or 2+2=5,Your misapprehension of the law of identity is neither my problem nor relevant to the question. You just couldn;t fucking do it, could you, you couldn't let it go, lol....
Quote:The point is the OP hypothetical fails. If all the OP said was "If there was a universe with another set of rules then there would be a universe with another set of rules but 2+2 still =4 and A still =A" then that would have been fine.Who cares about the OP point...are you really still arguing about the OP in response to the new formulation I offered you? You're hopeless.
Quote:If the different rules were logical then of course I'd call them logical... it's only if they contradict logical absolutes that they can't be logical because they can't even exist hypothetically if they contradict logical absolutes.Say -some- of them were the rules you knew...like...say as we've been doing for some time, we included identity...but still, because different is different, it yielded "different". Is that inclusion enough, in your estimation, is it sufficient condition... to call them logical? I want to make sure here, because I'm about to really piss you off...if you're comfortable calling them logical despite being different, even if they include -some- of the same things...and when I say piss you off, I mean -really- piss you off. Neo is gonna giggle though. If I can get you to jhust sign on, for clarity, so there's no wiggling. So think, think real hard, about whether or not your sideline, irrelevant argument, is really all that important to you....
Just one more time, for the record...if the rules were different, more accurate...and yeilded disparate conclusions to what you know based on the laws you know..as you know them...so long as we included your favorites......you're comfortable calling them logical, Ham? Using the same term for whatever it is I'm about to say...provided it meets all of those metrics just mentioned? That's how important it is to you, to have that irrelevant argument that has -nothing- to do with the question asked? One more fucking time, please, state for the record...after 28 pages so there aren't 29...that you're onboard so far.
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!
