On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

-If- there were another universe, with another set of rules, that would be interesting. What would those rules look like? What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be? How might it be, in that universe, that 2 and 2 yielded 5? Maybe...in that universe, when you combined 2 of something with 2 of something, an extra something popped into existence. If that were the case, then their math would likely reflect that. Afer all, this ath, these logical rules, they're all, ultimately, based in observations of our universe.

Actually, continuing from this, wouldn't it be very convenient - almost useful to the point of explaining why the word exists - to call this universe 'logical'? Because if it were, then it would definitely be interesting to think about. What's the point I'm making? That perhaps to be illogical is to be inconsistent. If somehow their set of axioms never gave the same answer to 2 + 2, then it would be completely illogical, because to them ponies are mushroom explodes, but tomorrow ponies are grey babbles. Nothing ever follows, because nothing really follows a set of axioms. And this kind of universe isn't interesting because we could never grasp anything about it, since nothing will follow from anything we can say about it.

[ApeNotKillApe]

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion. 2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe. The mere roll of the dice made it so.

It's also not necessarily true in this universe.

But I don't know what it would even mean for 2 + 2 to = 5. X = A + B =/= X?

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't try to infer much from convenience, myself.

To be illogical -is- to be inconsistent, but only with a specific set of rules.  If you have a rule that says "no swimming at the pool", and I'm swimming at the pool, I'm not being consistent with that rule, but I'm also not being illogical.  That's why we can't really boil down what it is to be illogical as inconsistency, or even inconsistency with rules in the general, in and of itself. It's not enough.  It's what we refer to, logically, as insufficient condition.  

Now, about indeterminancy.  If their sysm gace different values for the same question, it would be much more -difficult- to work out how to think about their universe, but not, necessarily, impossible.  Perhaps it spit out a range of values...and while it might be any value within that range, they'd at least know the range (and maybe even the range changed, from time to time).  

It would be fundamentally probabilistic thinking..but it could work.  Sure, it doesn't follow like stuff follows here, it doesn't follow logically, but that's kind of the point.  It's a different universe that works a different way.

If that's not an interesting universe to you, then why propose it, why not ditch this different universe with different rules altogether, and talk about universes that do interest you, different universes with the same rules, where things follow, logically, in the familiar fashion?

[GrandizerII]

-If- there were another universe, with another set of rules, that would be interesting. What would those rules look like? What would their relationship to each other and to whatever passes for truth in that universe be? How might it be, in that universe, that 2 and 2 yielded 5? Maybe...in that universe, when you combined 2 of something with 2 of something, an extra something popped into existence. If that were the case, then their math would likely reflect that. Afer all, this ath, these logical rules, they're all, ultimately, based in observations of our universe.

Actually, continuing from this, wouldn't it be very convenient - almost useful to the point of explaining why the word exists - to call this universe 'logical'? Because if it were, then it would definitely be interesting to think about. What's the point I'm making? That perhaps to be illogical is to be inconsistent. If somehow their set of axioms never gave the same answer to 2 + 2, then it would be completely illogical, because to them ponies are mushroom explodes, but tomorrow ponies are grey babbles. Nothing ever follows, because nothing really follows a set of axioms. And this kind of universe isn't interesting because we could never grasp anything about it, since nothing will follow from anything we can say about it.

The thing is, when you determine that something is illogical, you must be forced to use our (this universe's/cosmos's) logic to make that determination. I don't, and most likely will never, know what it is like for anything to be logical in a way different from our usual conception of logic. And I have no idea how to determine that something we determine to be illogical using our logic can be possible regardless of our logic.

So my answer, overall, is that if something that is illogical by our logic (such as A being not A simultaneously) can happen regardless, then so be it. But I just won't ever know using our logic.

[FallentoReason]

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion. 2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe. The mere roll of the dice made it so.

It's also not necessarily true in this universe.

But I don't know what it would even mean for 2 + 2 to = 5. X = A + B =/= X?

It's necessarily true in our universe, according to a priori logic.

[FallentoReason]

I wouldn't try to infer much from convenience, myself.

To be illogical -is- to be inconsistent, but only with a specific set of rules.  If you have a rule that says "no swimming at the pool", and I'm swimming at the pool, I'm not being consistent with that rule, but I'm also not being illogical.

That's a contradiction. You are being illogical because your actions aren't lining up with an axiom set in place.

 That's why we can't really boil down what it is to be illogical as inconsistency, or even inconsistency with rules in the general, in and of itself. It's not enough.  It's what we refer to, logically, as insufficient condition.

Doesn't follow, for now.

Now, about indeterminancy.  If their sysm gace different values for the same question, it would be much more -difficult- to work out how to think about their universe, but not, necessarily, impossible.  Perhaps it spit out a range of values...and while it might be any value within that range, they'd at least know the range (and maybe even the range changed, from time to time).  

Sure, I agree.

It would be fundamentally probabilistic thinking..but it could work.  Sure, it doesn't follow like stuff follows here, it doesn't follow logically, but that's kind of the point.  It's a different universe that works a different way.

And the point being that it *works*, hence why it's logical.

If that's not an interesting universe to you, then why propose it, why not ditch this different universe with different rules altogether, and talk about universes that do interest you, different universes with the same rules, where things follow, logically, in the familiar fashion?

But it is interesting to me, hence why I evoked the hypothetical. And perhaps I'll have to make another thread where we can continue the original discussion, despite our differences as to what classifies as "logical".

[FallentoReason]

Actually, continuing from this, wouldn't it be very convenient - almost useful to the point of explaining why the word exists - to call this universe 'logical'? Because if it were, then it would definitely be interesting to think about. What's the point I'm making? That perhaps to be illogical is to be inconsistent. If somehow their set of axioms never gave the same answer to 2 + 2, then it would be completely illogical, because to them ponies are mushroom explodes, but tomorrow ponies are grey babbles. Nothing ever follows, because nothing really follows a set of axioms. And this kind of universe isn't interesting because we could never grasp anything about it, since nothing will follow from anything we can say about it.

The thing is, when you determine that something is illogical, you must be forced to use our (this universe's/cosmos's) logic to make that determination. I don't, and most likely will never, know what it is like for anything to be logical in a way different from our usual conception of logic. And I have no idea how to determine that something we determine to be illogical using our logic can be possible regardless of our logic.

So my answer, overall, is that if something that is illogical by our logic (such as A being not A simultaneously) can happen regardless, then so be it. But I just won't ever know using our logic.

But isn't enough to know that it's a beast, without knowing what kind of beast it is? We aren't required to try and understand their axioms to know they will be logical, because so long as they form a coherent set by which that universe can function, then you have something which is inherently logical.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It's also not necessarily true in this universe.

But I don't know what it would even mean for 2 + 2 to = 5. X = A + B =/= X?

It's necessarily true in our universe, according to a priori logic.

Andromeda collides with Milky Way, of the two how many galaxies will remain afterward?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm actually not - but it wouldn't -matter- if I were.

Yes you are whenever you say that the hypothetical doesn't have logical laws and yes it would and does.

 I'm just giving it the term that was asked for it.  Whether it can be what it is and not what it is, is not my concern, it's not my hypothetical. 

The OP fails to describe a universe where all 'our' logical laws do not exist.

No one asked if it made sense, and I certainly don't think it does.

And that's why the hypothetical itself is not even being described.

I'm afraid I'm not the person having trouble getting it.  You think I am, because it makes no sense.  No shit..it doesn't make any sense...........

That's why you can't get it. You can't get it because there's nothing to get because it makes no sense.

Dude, it's not even possible to hypothetically to describe a universe where two things and two things are five things or when A=not A. The OP doesn't simply describe a universe that makes no sense it fails to even describe a universe that makes no sense without contradicting itself. A universe that violates the law of identity or basic mathematical sums can't even be described.

Describing a universe with an identity and implying that the law of identity holds in this case or all cases are not the same thing.

Describing a universe with an identity (which is any described universe, it's description=its identity) DOES imply the law of identity unless you don't understand the law of identity.

Oh for the love of god, who cares?  That's not the conjecture, that's not the position, I've expressed no such opinion on the matter whatsoever, and you're tilting at windmills.  Gratz, OP wins.  You aren't strawmanning me nitwit..you're strawmanning OP, because you don't know how to address the insensible, lol.  It's got you tied in a knot.  

Yes it is the propostion, I can read. The OP is trying to describe a universe where hypotehtically 2+2=5 but it fails to do so. It says that the logical law of identity in our universe doesn't apply to the hypotehtical universe in the OP but it does because the logical law of identity applies to all universes. You can't define your way our of it without presuming it. You can't define anything without the Law of Identity. When you're saying "I define universe X2 to be without the law of identity" that means the same thing as "the identity of universe X2 is without the law of identity" which means X2 fails to describe the law

Let me lay this out, again, super simple.

No, you're simplifying it.

 OP did not ask you whether or not such a universe existed or could exist.  OP asked you whether or not the -rules- of that hypothetical universe whose existence was to be taken as a fact in the thought experiment -were logical-.

The OP said more than that. Fuck this I'll quote the OP to you seen as you're not reading it all.

* Edwardo Piet pauses responding to the rest of your post

[Edwardo Piet]

Now, let's hypothesize about an alternate universe. This universe would have its own logic

No it wouldn't. You can't even hypothesize that.

by which beings would reason within this universe, and for the sake of convenience, let's call it "goblygoop". Let's also give goblygoop a new entry: according to goblygoop, 2 + 2 = 5 is actually true.

That doesn't mean anything and can't even be hypothesized.

Now, the question is, "is goblygoop logical?".

You have failed to hypothesize goblygoop in the first place so your question itself makes no sense.