On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Identity means that something is itself. 2+2=4 because 2 things and 2 things is the same as 4 things. That is completely unlike the sums you described which aren't even proper sums because they DO violate identity.

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

Like I said, the universe is irrelevant. Tell me why other universes are remotely relevant to A=A.

When you're saying "2+2=4 can be false" you're saying "A=A can be false." No it can't. Adding "in other universes" on the end of it won't get you anywhere. If we're talking about A we're talking about A, regardless of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

That's nice, dear.

So I persistently disagree and I get told I'm stubborn and denying reality.

Disagree with it's accuracy -as a potential actuality- all you like...so would I, but don't disagree with it's existence as a description or hypothetical, because that's fucking retarded.  

I've already answered it repeatedly.  It's a nonsensical question based on a nonsensical premise. It can't be answered.

Oh, but it can be answered.  OP is equivocating, lol

Let me point out, again, the point at which you failed to address the hypothetical, and began to pitch straw-

Identity means that something is itself. 2+2=4 because 2 things and 2 things is the same as 4 things.

-In the hypothetical universe- the identity of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. "Itself"...in the hypothetical universe, is 5, not 4. 5 is not a label for 4, it is 5. 5. Five. 2+2=5, in that universe. End of. Speak to that, or speak to something else, like how it -can't- be 5, and such a universe can't exist....and pitch straw. That's not the question of the OP, nor is it my question. It's no one's question. It is your own insistence, nothing more.

[Edwardo Piet]

Disagree with it's accuracy -as a potential actuality- all you like...so would I, but don't disagree with it's existence as a description or hypothetical, because that's fucking retarded.

What's fucking retarded is not recognizing that if a description and hypothetical has to be itself then A has to =A so no you can't have a hypothetical without A=A. You can't have anything without that anything being itself. It doesn't matter whether it's hypothetical and just in our imagination or not. You can't hypothesize something without hypothesizing something. You can't hypothesize something without A=A. To say otherwise is fucking retarded.

[Edwardo Piet]

-In the hypothetical universe- the identity of the sum of 2 and 2 is 5.  "Itself"...in the hypothetical universe, is 5, not 4.  5 is not a label for 4, it is 5.  5.  Five.  2+2=5, in that universe.  End of.  Speak to that, or speak to something else, like how it -can't- be 5, and such a universe can't exist....and pitch straw.

You're the one equivocating here because you're talking about the labelling. Two things and two things can't actually be more than what two things and two things actually is, which is four, yes we can LABEL two things and two things as "5" but that's where you're making a use/mention error and equivocating. 2+2 can never =5 but we can redefine or label the answer to 2+2 as "5". But "2+2" now is called "5" doesn't mean 2+2=5.

[Jackalope]

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.

Identity means that something is itself. 2+2=4 because 2 things and 2 things is the same as 4 things. That is completely unlike the sums you described which aren't even proper sums because they DO violate identity.

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

Like I said, the universe is irrelevant. Tell me why other universes are remotely relevant to A=A.

When you're saying "2+2=4 can be false" you're saying "A=A can be false." No it can't. Adding "in other universes" on the end of it won't get you anywhere. If we're talking about A we're talking about A, regardless of the universe.

2+2=4 is false when the underlying system is base 3. Likewise 1+1=10 in base 2, 7+1=10 in base 8, and so forth. You're only arguing that they're false because of your cognitive bias to base 10. Likewise, you're arguing that what is true in this universe must be true in all possible universes because of your cognitive bias that 2+2=4 which it certainly does here, provided that we're talking about base 10, and we're NOT talking about a system where axiomatically 2+2=5.

[Edwardo Piet]

2+2=4 is false when the underlying system is base 3.  Likewise 1+1=10 in base 2, 7+1=10 in base 8, and so forth.

Hence your equivocation. When we say 2+2=4 we're already talking about 2 things and 2 things being four things, which can't be false, we're not talking about other kinds of mathematics.

 You're only arguing that they're false because of your cognitive bias to base 10.

It's not a cognitive bias. It's a case of me not equivocating. When I say 2+2=4 I'm clearly talking about two things and two things being 4 things, I'm not talking about other forms of mathematics, when someone says "not necessarily because it may not be in base 10" they're wrong because I was talking about base 10.

I'm not talking about different concepts besides base 10. I'm saying if we're talking that 2+2=4 in base 10 then 2+2=4 in base 10. If we're talking 2 things and two things are four things then that's what we're talking about.

It doesn't matter whether it's base 10 or base 3 or what base it is: two objects together with two objects is four objects. Maybe "two objects with two objects is four objects" means something else in a different base, but it doesn't change the reality that four objects is four objects.

Changing the label isn't going to change the fact that two things together with two things, in the normal base 10 sense that we mean it, is always four things.  

Likewise, you're arguing that what is true in this universe must be true in all possible universes because of your cognitive bias that 2+2=4 which it certainly does here, provided that we're talking about base 10, and we're NOT talking about a system where axiomatically 2+2=5.

It's not a cognitive bias, it's your own equivocation.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're the one equivocating here because you're talking about the labelling.

SAtop.  I'm not, I wont tell you again that it's not an issue of label in the hyopthetical.   The sum of 2 and 2 is 5, 5 is not a label for 4.  It is 5.  The end...next time, I'll point and laugh.

Two things and two things can't actually be more than what two things and two things actually is, which is four, yes we can LABEL two things and two things as "5" but that's where you're making a use/mention error and equivocating. 2+2 can never =5 but we can redefine or label the answer to 2+2 as "5". But "2+2" now  is called "5" doesn't mean 2+2=5.

In this universe, 2+2=5, because, for example, when you add two and two things together, another, 5th thing materializes..and their math reflects that.  It doesn;t matter that this doesn;t happen in our universe...we're talking about a different universe, where different things happen, because of different rules.

[Jackalope]

2+2=4 is false when the underlying system is base 3.  Likewise 1+1=10 in base 2, 7+1=10 in base 8, and so forth.

Hence your equivocation. When we say 2+2=4 we're already talking about 2 things and 2 things being four things, which can't be false, we're not talking about other kinds of mathematics.

 You're only arguing that they're false because of your cognitive bias to base 10.

It's not a cognitive bias. It's a case of me not equivocating. When I say 2+2=4 I'm clearly talking about two things and two things being 4 things, I'm not talking about other forms of mathematics, when someone says "not necessarily because it may not be in base 10" they're wrong because I was talking about base 10.

I'm not talking about different concepts besides base 10. I'm saying if we're talking that 2+2=4 in base 10 then 2+2=4 in base 10. If we're talking 2 things and two things are four things then that's what we're talking about.

It doesn't matter whether it's base 10 or base 3 or what base it is: two objects together with two objects is four objects. Maybe "two objects with two objects is four objects" means something else in a different base, but it doesn't change the reality that four objects is four objects.

Changing the label isn't going to change the fact that two things together with two things, in the normal base 10 sense that we mean it, is always four things.  

Likewise, you're arguing that what is true in this universe must be true in all possible universes because of your cognitive bias that 2+2=4 which it certainly does here, provided that we're talking about base 10, and we're NOT talking about a system where axiomatically 2+2=5.

It's not a cognitive bias, it's your own equivocation.

No, it's you failing to recognize that we are talking about a system that has fundamentally different axioms than ones we operate under.

It's the difference between the abstract and the concrete. You're stuck in the concrete.

We aren't talking about the same thing, and it's only equivocation to you because you fail to understand that we aren't talking about the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's hard not to imagine our resident pigeon beating his business to this thread right now.  I blame you, Ham. 

[Edwardo Piet]

SAtop.

What do you expect me to do when you keep saying "stop"? Throw my hands up in the air and pretend to agree with you?

 I'm not, I wont tell you again that it's not an issue of label in the hyopthetical.   The sum of 2 and 2 is 5, 5 is not a label for 4.  It is 5.

You do realize that 2 things and 2 things is the same thing as four things? Stop it with the use/mention fucking error. Two things and two things can't be 5 things because 5 things is more than four things. It doesn't matter what universe it is in that doesn't change the reality that something is not what it is not.

 The end...next time, I'll point and laugh.

Because you're another one of those people who doesn't like to be persistently disagreed with?

You also were the one who first resorted to insults. I'm sorry that I think you're wrong but I'm allowed to think you're wrong as much as you're allowed to think I'm wrong, there's no need to be an immature cunt about it. I can just as easily pin you as stubborn as vice-versa.

In this universe, 2+2=5, because, for example, when you add two things together, another, 5th thing materializes..

Ok, you're an idiot. You called me an idiot first and now, seriously, you're an idiot for thinking this. If another thing materializes it doesn't mean that two things and two things is the same as 5 things it means that two things and two things is still four things and another thing materializes but that's completely irrelevant

and their math reflects that.

"their math"? You talk about math like its truths are based on the concept of minds. They're not. Two things and two things is still four things whether there's a mind to conceptualize it or not. There is no "their math" and "our math", we're not talking about the concepts of logical and mathematical laws, remember, we're talking about the actual truths they refer to. The laws themselves. You're making another use/mention error. Two things and two things will always be equal to four things whether we call the answer "5" or not.