On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, you're a moron, I do agree with that, I've told you as much at least half a dozen times now.  Just stop.  

It simply doesn't -matter- that you and I agree there, because -in the hypothetical- it does not have to hold, and even if it did, it would not be sufficient condition to consider the larger rule set logical.  It is a complete irrelevance, -to the hypothetical- even if true, even if we both agree..it has nothing to do with the question posed -by- the hypothetical, it is in fact straw, as is this long running argument you've been having with yourself about -my- position on whether or not the law of identity holds in all universes.

[Edwardo Piet]

You absolutely -can- address such a premise.  I did.  I informed the op that it was an illogical equivocation, on it;s own merits...even if all of it was true, regardless of whether or not it -can be- true.

There is no premise without A=A. For there to be a premise there has to be a premise. A has to =A. If you really agree with that you'll realize all premises imply the truth of the law of identity so when the OP thinks he is creating a premise without it he's wrong. You can't have hypotheticals without the law of identity it doesn't matter what universe it is or whether it's existent.

[Edwardo Piet]

Again, you're a moron, I do agree with that, I've told you as much at least half a dozen times now.  Just stop.

How am I a moron when you keep contradicting yourself?

-in the hypothetical- it does not have to hold,

Yes it does. So stop telling me you agree.

and even if it did, it would not be sufficient condition to consider the larger rule set logical.

Doesn't matter. You've already agreed that if it holds 2+2=4 because 2+2=5 violates it and if the OP includes the Law of Identity then the OP is mistaken in thinking that it doesn't include any of 'our' logical laws.

 It is a complete irrelevance, -to the hypothetical- even if true.

This is why we don't agree. YOU CAN'T HAVE A HYPOTHETICAL WITHOUT IT BEING A HYPOTHETICAL WITHOUT A=A.

That's relevant to the hypothetical because the hypothetical claims for 'our' logical laws to not hold and A=A is one of 'our' logical laws. Scare quotes because "A=A" isn't one of 'our' logical laws, it's an absolute logical law that applies in all hypotheticals regardless of what universe.

For fucks sake. Are you taking the piss? The Law of Identity has to hold in the hypothetical because otherwise it's not actually a hypothetical. A=A holds everywhere in all hypotheticals and all universes. There is no sense in which "if X then Y" (a hypothetical) does not mean "if X then Y", it doesn't matter what universe we're in. Whatever universe is being described the universe being described is the universe being described. A=A. You're the moron here so fuck off with the insults dipshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are illogical premises.  Their being illogical does not mean that they do not exist.  Stop.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm relating to you the specifics of someone -else's- hypothetical....which I do not consider to be even remotely rational. Nevertheless, I am capable of addressing the question posed by that hypothetical rationally, and so are you...you simply -haven't been-.

Stop arguing with me about whether or not the law of identity has to hold. You and I do not disagree, there, for the very last time. That doesn't change the fact, that, in the hypothetical..it doesn't have to hold, and doesn't matter if it -does- hold. It;s not relevant if it doesn't, and it's not sufficient condition if it does....to the proposition that the rules of said hypothetical universe are logical.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

Wrong. I don't care what your hypothetical is, A=A is already presupposed, 2+2=4 is already presupposed because it's truth is based on A=A (2+2=4 because four things and two and two things is the same thing, it has the same identity... A=A)... so when you think you are describing an "if X then Y" situation without the law of identity and without 2+2=4 then you're WRONG. It doesn't matter what universe it is.

[Edwardo Piet]

Stop arguing with me about whether or not the law of identity has to hold.  You and I do not disagree, there, for the very last time.  That doesn't change the fact, that, in the hypothetical..it doesn't have to hold,

Yes it does. All hypotheticals presuppose the law of identity.

It has to hold in all hypothetical universes, I've fucking told you that it doesn't make a difference in the hypothetical, so instead of strawmanning me by telling me that we agree but it's different in the hypothetical... accept that we don't agree because I'm saying it's NOT different in the hypothetical.

[Edwardo Piet]

There are illogical premises.  Their being illogical does not mean that they do not exist.  Stop.

They all at least contain the logical law of identity so they're not fully illogical. The only alternative is they're not a premise at all. You can't have a premise that isn't a premise.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm relating to you the specifics of someone -else's- hypothetical....which I do not consider to be even remotely rational.

You're contradicting yourself because you told me you accept that 2+2=5 violates the law of identity but then you also said that even if the law of identity holds in this other universe 2+2 can =5. That's self-contradictory. if 2+2=5 violates the law of identity then it can't hold in a universe with the law of identity.

 Nevertheless, I am capable of addressing the question posed by that hypothetical rationally, and so are you...you simply -haven't been-.

Yes I have. I'm addressing the question by saying that it fails to ask what it thinks it is asking. I'm addressing the premise by saying it's not actually a successful premise.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and if it's not different in the hypothetical, it still doesn't matter, because said universe holding to the law of identity, but not the other logical laws, is not sufficient condition for those laws, whatever they are, to be considered logical laws.

In a universe, where, when you add two things to two things, you have 5 things, 5 is the identity of the sum of 2 and 2...the law holds, within that universe, but does not yield what it yields here, because that -doesn't- happen here. It's not a contradiction -of mine-...it's simply a difference between this universe and the hypothetical universe.

Without, at least, entertaining he notion, you -cannot- respond with anything but straw. The proposition is not whether or not such a universe exists or is possible, it is whether or not the rules of such a universe - as expressed by that operation..in that universe, are logical.

[Edwardo Piet]

-and if it's not different in the hypothetical, it still doesn't matter, because said universe holding to the law of identity, but not the other logical laws, is not sufficient condition for those laws, whatever they are, to be considered logical laws.

You've already agreed that if the law of identity is true then 2+2=4 and can't =5.

In a universe, where, when you add two things to two things, you have 5 things, 5 is the identity of the sum of 2 and 2

No such universe can be described. You're making a use/mention error. 4 things can't have the identity of 5 (it doesn't matter what universe it is). All you can do is label 4 things as "5".... 4 things are still 4 things and 5 things are still 5 things. Labelling is irrelevant.

the law holds, within that universe, but does not yield what it yields here, because that -doesn't- happen here.  It's not a contradiction -of mine-...it's simply a difference between this universe and the hypothetical universe.

I told you enough times it doesn't fucking matter what universe it is and I've given my reasons. A=A is absolute in all hypotheticals. Address that.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've already agreed that if the law of identity is true then 2+2=4 and can't =5.

The law of identity refers to what we observe here, in our universe.  I think it holds, but I don't think theres any universe, or at least any sensible universe, in which things pop into existence just because you add two and two.  -In the hypothetical- not to my mind Ham...not to my mind, but -in the hypothetical-...that does happen.  That is the universe described.

Now what?

No such universe can be described. You're making a use/mention error. 4 things can't have the identity of 5 (it doesn't matter what universe it is). All you can do is label 4 things as "5".... 4 things are still 4 things and 5 things are still 5 things. Labelling is irrelevant.

Obviously such a universe -can be- described....it has -been- described.  I just described it.  You're losing your shit.  Further, 4 things, in my example, -doesn't- have the identity of 5, five things do.  In that hypothetical universe, which I don't think exists, when you add two things to two things, an extra thing pops into existence.  Thus, the valid and correct sum of 2+2=5.  That;s how we put our math together, that's how they would put their math together.

I told you enough times it doesn't fucking matter what universe it is and I've given my reasons. A=A is absolute in all hypotheticals. Address that.

There is no reason to address it, we do not disagree, and it is irrelevant to the question posed by the hypothetical.