On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm going to dissect the OP now.

[The Grand Nudger]

An illogical universe can't be logical, no.

-and you can stop there.  I know you want there to be more, there isn't.  Even in this, we have to lay the provision that this is only true, -in this universe-..because fuck me, if a universe can evade logic we can't say -anything- about it, logically.  Maybe it can be illogically logical...because the laws that exist here (like identity) that state it can't be don't hold there....nevertheless, we can't say so -here.  Which is exactly what I expressed in the last thread, about the same silly ass thing.

An illogical universe can't be anything. It can't exist. Because as already explained it would have to at least have the Law of Identity.... and therefore it wouldn't be fully illogical. Illogical universes can't exist and and therefore they can't be logical. Because it would not be logical for an illogical universe to be logical or a logical universe to be illogical, and, all universes are logical.

You're trying to make an insensible thing sensible.  This was OP's turd, don't make it your own.  

2+2=5 can't be logical and isn't logical.

-and that, with nothing else, answers the question asked and the proposition offered.

2+2=5 can't be anything. It can't be. 2 things and 2 things being 5 things isn't even imaginable and can't even be true hypothetically. 2+2=4 is as solid as the law of identity because they have the same identity. "2 and 2" and "4" are just the same thing from two different precepts and anyone who thinks they are different is making a use mention error.

In the OP's hypothetical universe, it can be, and further -is-.  It's insensible, which has led you to pitch straw at the insensible.  That's the utility of the insensible, more often than not.  We try to make it sensible, we invest it to be something less silly than it is, to address it for what it is not. You probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that this was all about a god concept, would you, lol. OFC it was.

[Edwardo Piet]

let's hypothesize about an alternate universe. This universe would have its own logic (1C - ...the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.) 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 isn't possible because logic is more than its concept. The Law of Identity is true in all universes and 2+2=5 is false in all universes the same way no bachelors are married in any universes and A is not not A in any universes.

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

No because it can't exist. Nothing nonexistent can be logical.

Initially it seems like it isn't, because according to 2A goblygoop needs to agree to the rules of 'logic' (our logic in this universe), which it doesn't.

The logical absolutes aren't about universes or the beings in those universes that conceptualize it.

Universes don't have their own logical absolutes. Beings can conceptualize the logical absolutes differently, but the logical absolutes are in all universes because they're, well, absolute.

There is no universe in which A=not A.

You can't evade logical impossibilities by postulating a different universe.

The truth of the law identity I know to an even more profound degree than I know my own existence.... because despite the fact I 100% absolutely know my own existence because "I think therefore I am" I can at least hypotehtically conceive of my own non-existence, in the sense my own existence isn't necessary. It would have been possible for me to not exist despite my knowing that I do exist. However when it comes to the law of identity this is not the case. I can't even conceive of a universe in which the law of identity doesn't exist and neither can you... and it's MORE than that too. Our own imagination is irrelevant. It's not even relevant that we can't conceive of a universe in which the law of identity doesn't exist... the reason we can't conceive of it is that it's not logically possible for it to not be true. Because even if there were a universe hypothetically "without the law of identity" that itself would be that universe's identity, so it's absolutely non-contradictable. Which is why another name for the law of identity is the law of non-contradiciton. There is no possible universe in which it could not be true.

So is the illogical universe you described illogical? Well it's illogical in the sense of not logical because it's not anything because it doesn't exist. COULD it exist? No. If it did exist would it be logical? No because you've already defined it in ways that are logically contradictory ("2+2=5" and the like)

But obviously, that answer is relative to this universe.

No. That's not obvious at all and therein lies your assumption. It does no good to say that your premise is that it's only relevant to its own universe because within your premise itself lies the implicit premise that the law of identity MUST be true and 2+2 MUST be 4. There are no possible senses and no possible universes in which it could be otherwise. Your premise has logical contradictions built into it.

"If there were a universe where 2+2=5" doesn't actually mean anything. You as well have said "sagklsngasglnaskg asgsagoasgoiasg aogijasoigj". It's nonsense. "If there were a universe where our logical laws don't apply".... well, if that includes the law of identity then that entails you basically saying "If there was a universe that was not itself" which, again, it's nonsense, you may as well have said "wiasgasiogasoiga sijioasgjasiogjsaiog joasigjasio"

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion.

Nope.

"2+2=4" means "two things and two things are the same as four things", and because they're the same it means the same as "two things and two things is two things and two things" or "four things is four things". It's the law of identity, ulitmately. All mathematically correct sums and all tautologies are based on it.

There is no sense in which two things and two things are not four things and no sense in which A=not A and no sense in which bachelors are married.

It does no good to say "oh but this universe is different" because if it were different then it would be different, and that itself is the law of identity. It does no good to say "in this universe two things and two things are 5 things" because you're basically saying an amount of things that isn't equal to another amount of things is equal to another amount of things. You're logically contradicting yourself. And you can't say "in this universe logically contradictory things can be true" because that makes no sense. Truth itself at the very least implies non-contradiction. A universe cannot be not itself, that makes no sense.

"in this universe nothing makes any sense"... then what are you actually describing? You may as well have said "saigsahgisahgsaighsai"

2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe.

It does equal 4 in every universe. 2+2=4 is the same as 2+2=2+2 or A=A.

The mere roll of the dice made it so.

No lol. 2+2=2+2. A=A. That which is is.

If the mere roll of a dice had made things differently then guess what, the mere roll of the dice would have made things differently... or in other words A=A. Or in other words it couldn't have made things differently because A always=A even when you try and escape it.

Two things and two things and four things is the same thing from two different precepts.

There is no sense in which two things and two things are five things. Five by definition means more than two things and two things. Two things and two things is equal to four things which by definition is less than five things.

"But you're using our logic to prove their logic!" - no, my aim isn't to prove any of their axioms. I'm simply saying that an arbitrary set of axioms can by all accounts be considered "logical", even if that logic won't make sense here. It's all relative to the universe you're in.

There's no such thing as "our logic" and "their logic", there's only logic. The difference is only in how the beings in another universe conceptualize it. Maybe there could be other logical laws but we don't know what you're actually talking about when you say that. But you have listed things that are not possible in any unvierses. It's not possible in any universe for 2+2 to =5 and it's not possible in any universe for the law of identity to be false because even the falseness of it described is an identity itself and therefore its falseness is false and its truth is implied.

[Edwardo Piet]

-and you can stop there.  I know you want there to be more, there isn't.  Even in this, we have to lay the provision that this is only true, -in this universe-..because fuck me, if a universe can evade logic we can't say -anything- about it, logically.

Universes can't evade logic.

I've already told you why as soon as you say "in this universe the logical laws don't apply" you're already implicitly implying the Law of Identity.

 Maybe it can be illogically logical..

No it can't that makes no sense.

.because the laws that exist here (like identity) that state it can't be don't hold there

You're already describing its identity. It must hold.

....nevertheless, we can't say so -here.

You don't get it. You can't say "in this universe the law of identity doesn't apply". I don't give a fuck what universe you imagine, the law of identity transcends all universes and your imagination.

Do you realize yet that when you imagine any universe without the law of identitiy you are already describing a universe with an identity and thereby you have already implied the law of identity and contradicted yourself?

It's not possible for there to be a universe without the law of identity. I already gave you four premises and a conclusion to show you why that's the case. You said I had strawmanned you because you said we weren't discussing universes without the law of identity. That completely contradicts the OP and all the times you have said that the universe described in the OP doesn't have our logical laws.

 Which is exactly what I expressed in the last thread, about the same silly ass thing.

You don't get it. There is no possible universe without the law of identity.

You're trying to make an insensible thing sensible.  This was OP's turd, don't make it your own.

You don't get it.

In the OP's hypothetical universe, it can be, and further -is-.

No it isn't. There is no EVEN HYPOTHETICAL universe without the law of identity because you're hypothesiszing the law of identity itself when you say you aren't even when you think you aren't.

"this universe doesn't have the law of identitiy"= "the identity of this universe is one without the law of identity"=nonsense.

There is no even hypothetical universe without the law of identity in the same way that there's no even hypothetical universe in which A=not A.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Rhythm

Premise 1: Illogical universes have to be illogical universes by their own definition.
Premise 2: The Law of Identity is a logical law.
Premise 3: The Law of Identity means that something has to be what it is by its own definition.
Premise 4: Any universe that follows any logical laws can't possibly be a fully illogical universe.

Conclusion: Fully illogical universes can't exist.

I am hoping you realize there's also the implicit conclusion that the law of identity applies to all possible and hypothetical universes. Because the very conclusion that fully illogical universes cannot exist is based on the fact that the law of identity must necessarily absolutely certainly without a doubt apply to all possible and hypothetical universes. This argument is valid in all and one relevant sense and sound in all and both relevant senses.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and you can stop there.  I know you want there to be more, there isn't.  Even in this, we have to lay the provision that this is only true, -in this universe-..because fuck me, if a universe can evade logic we can't say -anything- about it, logically.

Universes can't evade logic.

I've already told you why as soon as you say "in this universe the logical laws don't apply" you're already implicitly implying the Law of Identity.

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

No it can't that makes no sense.

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

You're already describing its identity. It must hold.

I'm only repeating what it has been described as being.  I;m not invoking that law...though I do, when I say, "No, an illogical universe cannot be logical."  If i felt comfortable, or were allowed to step outside the bounds of logical thought in giving the response, I'd say "cheesecake" just like I did in the last silly ass thread about the same silly ass thing. Because why not, right?

You don't get it. You can't say "in this universe the law of identity doesn't apply". I don't give a fuck what universe you imagine, the law of identity transcends all universes and your imagination.

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...........

Do you realize yet that when you imagine any universe without the law of identitiy you are already describing a universe with an identity and thereby you have already implied the law of identity and contradicted yourself?

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.  

It's not possible for there to be a universe without the law of identity. I already gave you four premises and a conclusion to show you why that's the case. You said I had strawmanned you because you said we weren't discussing universes without the law of identity. That completely contradicts the OP and all the times you have said that the universe described in the OP doesn't have our logical laws.

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.  

Let me lay this out, again, super simple.  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-.  All your arguments regarding whether or not such a universe exists or could exist....meaningless straw. They may even be true, I certainly agree with you....but that doesn't change the fact that you have failed to address the op argument, and instead babbled on about something else for all of this time. Further, it's all pointless nonsense anyway, in context. That something does not exist, does not imply that it cannot be logical. I can come up with all sorts of logical shit -that doesn't exist-...like a clock radio that tickles my scrote while it fries me an egg...so why did you even think that would be relevant?

The ops question is simple, despite it's tortured formulation. If the rules were different, would they be logical rules. I say no, you say no, -logic- says no. Whether or not the rules could be different, or any place in which the rules -were- different exists, is irrelevant, it's no either way, because as you've been harping on for some time now, the law of identity is a thing, and to be logical, one has to conform to it. That;s all there is to the entirety of the OP's question. There is no more. Any more is just straw, arguing about and speaking to some other thing, some other conjecture, some other question.

I was -trying- to help you save yourself the heartache. Prepare to be called some sort of axiom "sexist" by OP....I'm not even kidding.

You don't get it. There is no possible universe without the law of identity.

Stop

You don't get it.

No it isn't. There is no EVEN HYPOTHETICAL universe without the law of identity because you're hypothesiszing the law of identity itself when you say you aren't even when you think you aren't.

In the OP's hypothetical, it is, full stop.  If you keep saying "no no no no, such a universe is impossible"..you aren't arguing against the op's actual position, you're pitching straw.  The ops position, is that it might be possible for illogical laws to be logical.  Argue that...you know, the ops -actual- position. The point of contention. The question asked.

"this universe doesn't have the law of identitiy"= "the identity of this universe is one without the law of identity"=nonsense.

There is no even hypothetical universe without the law of identity in the same way that there's no even hypothetical universe in which A=not A.

...staaaaaaaahp.

[FallentoReason]

Well, I guess according to my understanding of this space-time, "4" is an abstract concept that can also be used to describe a set of things in our 3 dimensional world. But that's me with this logic. Couldn't another universe have a radically different way of being? Why/why not?

Ok, so this is similar to the second paragraph in my post. Please elaborate, how do you define 2 and 4 in relation to our 3 dimensional universe?

It doesn't matter what they mean in our 3-d universe, because I'm interested in the incomprehensible meaning that another universe with another set of logical rules would have, and if that meaning can actually be said to be "logical", which in the OP I have shown it is.

[FallentoReason]

2 + 2 = 5 will never make sense to us because we're conditioned to this space-time. You can't rule it out on that basis. Goblygoop could very well have a strange axiom that simply makes maths different to what we're used to.

Then it's not math.  It's something else.

Math only gets its meaning from our understanding of space-time. Math will be different wherever space-time is different in other universes.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they're logical rules they're not "another set" of rules, they're the same set of rules. OFC, then, 2+2 could not equal 5, in that other universe. Oh well.

Round and round we go. Is there anything else you'd like to claim victory on? Perhaps you also defeated ISIS in the OP, or cured cancer?

[FallentoReason]

Were you around for the last 15 pages of asshattery about the same thing, before op flew off like the pigeon it is to make a new thread about it...due to it's laughable failure in that other thread?  This is an attempt to scrub the baggage of that thread, op got tired of being quoted and held to it's statements.

For shame Rhythm. I didn't reply in the other thread because your last post had no substance in relation to the topic.

Soooo, lets start all over again.

Yes, let's.

OFC there could be some alternate universe where 2+2=5, if things were different, things would be different.

Agreed. Check.

There's no reason to wonder what the terms mean, or how it would come about to be so.  It;s a hypothetical universe, it can hypothetically be however the imaginer wants it to be,

Agreed, because potentially said imagined universe could be a possiblity.

particularly since it's a universe where logic doesn't apply, a universe with different rules.  

Yes, our logic does not apply. In this hypothetical, it's the formal laws of goblygoop.

What it can't be, if the imaginer wants it to be a universe with different rules, where logic doesn't apply...is logical.

Incorrect. The OP contains the simple answer to why it is logical. Since this hypothetical universe has its own way of functioning, it means that it will have its own way for beings to ponder their universe, and such a construct is what we call "LOGIC" - a formal set of axioms by which one can reason. Thus, there can be such a thing as 'logical' in that universe, including of course their logic itself - goblygoop.[/quote]