On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

Does what op says have something to do with what I say, Ham?

Yes when you tell me that in the OP's hypothetical A need not =A and 2+2 perhaps can =5... that's what the OP is saying. You're at least accepting the hypotehtical of 2+2=5 in another universe or the law of identity not applying in naother universe.

No, I'm not, I'm describing a way in which 2+2=5 could be true in that other, different, universe -while- assuming identity..which I thought would be helpful.  Obviously, it's not, because you'd rather bicker about identity as though -I- disagreed either in position or example...which obviously I don't, than consider the ops question..which was this.  Could such a ruleset be logical?  End of, oh ye lord of straw.

Carry on, if you must, with whatever it is you want to kvetch about..until the end of days. It will never approach or answer the question I've repeatedly asked you, or the question contained in the op, regardless of which of us has managed to formulate the question more sensibly or amenably to the way that -you- think.

"You must accept my propositions of universal logical rules, and the universe described is illogical" No one cares, no ones asked, it's an irrelevance.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not the one contradicting myself and the other person and telling them that I'm agreeing with them, here. I'm not the one missing the implication. I'm not the one who started with the insults. I'm not the one who ragequits when someone disagrees with me.

...and I'm not the one who is completely and utterly, despite having it explained ad nauseum, misapplying the law of identity.

P.S.  I'm not ragequitting, I'm simply recognizing that one cannot have a conversation with a brick wall.  You're being as stubbornly wrong as Waldork here, FFS.

You said you agreed that irrational axioms can't be irrational axioms without being irrational axioms. That means that A=A applies to irrational axioms.

If you can't hypothesize something without hypotehsizing something then you can't hypothesize something without A=A applying.

The implications of the law of identity is that the law is absolute. It doesn't matter whether it's a hypothetical or what universe your describing, whatever you are describing you are describing whatever you're describing. You say "no shit Sherlock" but then you fail to see that that is the same as A=A, that that is the same as the law of identity, that whatever you hypotehsize the law of identity is implied. Remember I'm talking about the truth of the law of identity itself as opposed to the concept. I'm talking that something is whatever it is regardless of whether we exist to conceptualize it or not, and regardless of whether it's hypothetical or another universe or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, I'm not, I'm describing a way in which 2+2=5 could be true in that other, different, universe

No you're not, you're not describing that, you just think you are because you fail to see the implications.

Remember I've said what universe it is is irrelevant. A=A. Cosmology doesn't matter. Whatever universe we're talking about we're talking about whatever universe we're talking about and that means the same thing as A=A which means whatever universe we're talking about we're talking about a universe where the law of identity applies.

2+2=4 because 4 has the same identity as 2+2. 5 does not. 5 never can. It doesn't matter what universe it is, if we're talking about 4 things we're talking about 4 things, not 5 things.

[The Grand Nudger]

No you're not, you're not describing that, you just think you are because you fail to see the implications.

Stop, I don't fail to see the implcations, they simply aren't -my- implications..they are the implications of the hypothetical...which I don't think is or can be actual in any case.

Remember I've said what universe it is is irrelevant. A=A. Cosmology doesn't matter. Whatever universe we're talking about we're talking about whatever universe we're talking about and that means the same thing as A=A which means whatever universe we're talking about we're talking about a universe where the law of identity applies.

Pitch it baby, here, you can have my fork.

2+2=4 because 4 has the same identity as 2+2. 5 does not. 5 never can. It doesn't matter what universe it is, if we're talking about 4 things we're talking about 4 things, not 5 things.

Not in the hypothetical universe we're describing.  In the hypothetical universe we're describing, 2+2=5.  Handle it, address that, or bitch about something else, your call.

OP doesn't ask you, nor do I ask, you, whether or not such a univers can or does exist. Op asks you, and I ask you, whether or not such a universe, in which the proposition -is- true...however it may be true, can be called "logical".

[Edwardo Piet]

Stop, I don't fail to see the implcations,

Yes you do.

Not in the hypothetical universe we're describing.  In the hypothetical universe we're describing, 2+2=5.  Handle it, address that, or bitch about something else, your call.

Wrong. I've already told you, such a hypothetical universe has not been described. A universe where something is something that it isn't is a so-called hypothetical that makes too little sense to be a hypothetical at all. "If 2+2=5 then 2+2=5 only not really because it can't because that would mean something is something that it is not" isn't a hypothetical. It's as little of a hypothetical as "oajgsaogjsao". Labelling 2+2 as "5" =/= a successful hypothetical where 2+2=5. There can be no successful hypothetical where 2+2=5.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Yes you do"
No, I don't
"Yes you do"
No, I don't'

Boring, Ham, boring, and...like all of this bullshit about identity, irrelevant.  

I've -been- describing it.  Deny reality as it hits you in your stubborn face...but when you're done with that, maybe answer or even approach the question repeatedly asked?

[Edwardo Piet]

OP doesn't ask you, nor do I ask, you, whether or not such a univers can or does exist.

Stop strawmanning me. Even CD made this strawman of me too, saying that the OP is not an existentialist claim, I'm not addressing existence.

I've already said repeatedly it's not even possible hypothetically, I'm not talking about existence, I'm talking about hypotheticals. No hypothetical can be described that isn't a hypotehtical being described. Therefore no hypothetical can be described that doesn't contain its own identity therefore no hypothetical can be described where A=not A. Therefore the law of identity applies to all hypotheticals. And now you've moved the goalposts by presuming the law of identity and moved onto addressing 2+2=5 rather than admitting that the law of identity is necessary in all hypotheticals. So now I'm having to explain to you why 2+2=5 violates the law of identity and even if you accept that you won't understand the relevance until you accept that the law of identity must apply in all hypotheticals, and so by violating it 2+2=5 can't be so in any hypotheticals either, and so the OP can't possibly be describing what he thinks he is describing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, assuming that the law of identity -must be- included, as I have included it, for no reason other than your benefit (which is starting to seem like a waste of my consideration, asshole)......

...... is the ruleset which yields 2+2=5, in that universe where it -does- yield that, a logical ruleset?

[Jackalope]

There can be no successful hypothetical where 2+2=5.

Sure there can.

In *this* universe...

1+1=10
7+1=10
9+7=10
9+8=10

...can all be true, but you'd argue that they can't - and that they'd violate identity - and you'd be wrong, because of your myopic view.

Similarly, 2+2=4 can be false - and violate identity - in *this* universe.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Yes you do"
No, I don't
"Yes you do"
No, I don't'

Boring, Ham, boring, and...like all of this bullshit about identity, irrelevant.  

The way I see it is: you don't get the relevance.

I've -been- describing it.  Deny reality as it hits you in your stubborn face...

So I persistently disagree and I get told I'm stubborn and denying reality. I could say exactly the same about those who stubbornly disagee with me. It's just like those cunts who try to have the last word with me by telling me that I'm trying to have the last word with them. Tired of such hipocrisy.

I can say the same thing to you, you'er stubborn and denying reality.

You haven't been describing it, you think you have because you fail to see the relevance of A=A. You can't describe a hypothetical without describing it and you're like "duh" but completely ignore the conclusion that "therefore you can't have a hypothetical that is not itself therefore A=A therefore the law of identity applies in the hypotehtical[/quote]

but when you're done with that, maybe answer or even approach the question repeatedly asked?

I've already answered it repeatedly. It's a nonsensical question based on a nonsensical premise. It can't be answered. I'm more interested in discussing why you fail to realize that and why you insist on telling me to answer a nonsense question. Next you'll be telling me "Why is there something rather than nothing?" isn't a nonsensical question either.