On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

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're not talking about different concepts or systems of logical or mathematical laws, we're talking about different logical or mathematical laws.

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.

If we're talking about the same thing then 2+2=4 because we're both talking in base 10.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

We do agree, our agreement is irrelevant to the hypothetical.  :points and laughs:

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.

:points and laughs:

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

Because I'm a person who's well of patience is not bottomless.  : points and laughs:

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.

"Waaaaaah, rhythm called me retarded for making pages of retarded posts!"  


I can be a stubborn, immature cunt- and be right, so, tell me more about me. lol.

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

You must be foggy as to how and why we arranged our simple addition as we did.  When we had two things on our hands, and added two more things, we saw that we had four things.  

-and so, here, to us, 2+2=4.

When they, =there-... put two things into their hands, and add another two things, suddenly, they are holding 5 things...and so, to them..2+2=5. Hardly suprising, since it's a different universe, with different rules, which lead to different results.

"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.

I'm talking about math like it's descriptive, based upon observed relationships of truth.  Such that here, because 2+2 equals 4, we consider that to be true, whereas there, where 2+2=5..they consider -that- to be true.

[Jackalope]

Two things and two things will always be equal to four things whether we call the answer "5" or not.

...except in the hypothetical - apparently magical - universe we are conceptualizing where axiomatically, that is not the case. In that apparently magical universe, 2+2=5 in actuality in every way that 2+2=4 here without violating identity, and it isn't important to understand how this is so (or whether it makes sense to us) in order to answer the OP's question. In this hypothetical universe, 2 and 2 things put together equal 5 just as surely as they equal 4 here.

[Edwardo Piet]

We do agree, our agreement is irrelevant to the hypothetical.  :points and laughs:

We don't agree on everything. We don't agree on the nature of the hypothetical.

If we agreed on everything then you'd agree with me that there can be no hypotheticals that don't apply the law of identity and no universe can be described where 2+2 does not =4 in the base 10 sense.

:points and laughs:

And what is the point of that?

Because I'm a person who's well of patience is not bottomless.  : points and laughs:

Well it's certainly less bottomless than mine.

"Waaaaaah, rhythm called me retarded for making pages of retarded posts!"  

No. Just no. Remember, I think your posts are retarded just as much as you think mine are.

Are you enjoying making fun of me? Because it's kind of pointless because if you don't want to debate this anymore you could just, you know, say so.

I can be a stubborn, immature cunt- and be right, so, tell me more about me.  lol.

Well I also think you're awesome and like you a lot. I hope you don't take any of this personally, I'm super stubborn when I think I'm right, and especially when I am right, but one thing I always notice when someone calls me "stubborn" as an insult is they're persistently or 'stubbornly' disagreeing with me just as much as I am them. And when someone tells me I'm just trying to have the last word because I respond to everything they say: They're guilty of exactly the same thing, they're responding to everything I say. And when they say I'm just "trying to have the last word", they're just trying to have the last word. Now obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but you're guilty of the same stubbornness from my point of view that I am from yours, so what is your purpose when you tell me to "stop" or say I'm "stubborn" or when you point and laugh. Is it just that you are enjoying yourself and want to see how I react? Because if so, I'm glad to be of service.

You must be foggy as to how and why we arranged our simple addition as we did.  When we had two things on our hands, and added two more things, we saw that we had four things.

And yet it doesn't matter how we arrange it... four things is the same amount of things as two things and two things.

I don't think you even understand the use/mention distinction. At this point I feel it's definitely not a failure of my explanation, it's a failure of your understanding.

I'm talking about math like it's descriptive, based upon observed relationships of truth.  Such that here, because 2+2 equals 4, we consider that to be true, whereas there, where 2+2=5..they consider -that- to be true.

You're talking about the concepts of math instead of the truths of math then. I've been repeatedly trying to allude to the use/mention distinction and you keep showing me how you ARE making that error.

[Jackalope]

We're not talking about different concepts or systems of logical or mathematical laws, we're talking about different logical or mathematical laws.

Right. We're talking about a universe where if you have 2 a thing in one hand, and 2 of a thing in your other hand, and you put them together, you have 5 things, and when you take them apart you have two and two again.

Glad you finally caught up with that.

[Edwardo Piet]

5 things is not 2 things and 2 things. The fact another thing pops into existence is irrelevant, 4 things are still 4 things and 5 things are still 5 things, sorry try again.

[The Grand Nudger]

We do agree, our agreement is irrelevant to the hypothetical.  :points and laughs:

We don't agree on everything. We don't agree on the nature of the hypothetical.

We actually do..  I think it's irrational, unreasonable, meaningless. Nevertheless, it exists.  

If we agreed on everything then you'd agree with me that there can be no hypotheticals that don't apply the law of identity and no universe can be described where 2+2 does not =4 in the base 10 sense.

OFC I don't agree with you on the things which are false by simple reference to their existence in this very thread.  I'd have to be a complete moron.

And what is the point of that?

What's the point in bickering over the actuality of identity to which w both agree when it has nothing to do with the question asked?  No point at all, but obviously, I;m incapable of helping you crawl out of the hole and so I point and laugh, and you're incapable of addressing the question asked..so you bicker with someone who agrees with you about identity.

Well it's certainly less bottomless than mine.

Maybe you're just a better man than I, Ham, lol. / shrugs

No. Just no. Remember, I think your posts are retarded just as much as you think mine are.

Are you enjoying making fun of me? Because it's kind of pointless because if you don't want to debate this anymore you could just, you know, say so.

 
I am, yes, I'd enjoy it more if you could have a rational conversation about the point of contention, but failing that, so long as you persist, all that's left are jokes.

Well I also think you're awesome and like you a lot. I hope you don't take any of this personally, I'm super stubborn when I think I'm right, and especially when I am right, but one thing I always notice when someone calls me "stubborn" as an insult is they're persistently or 'stubbornly' disagreeing with me just as much as I am them. And when someone tells me I'm just trying to have the last word because I respond to everything they say: They're guilty of exactly the same thing, they're responding to everything I say. And when they say I'm just "trying to have the last word", they're just trying to have the last word. Now obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but you're guilty of the same stubbornness from my point of view that I am from yours, so what is your purpose when you tell me to "stop" or say I'm "stubborn" or when you point and laugh. Is it just that you are enjoying yourself and want to see how I react? Because if so, I'm glad to be of service.

I don't take any of it personally, take heart.  It's a game to me, including trash talking.  I know you;re stubborn.  You;re actually falling nto the same business you fel into last time with that argument you reminded me of, lol.  You think you;re so damned right you can;t realize that I'm not telling you that your wrong, just that what you're right about is irrelevant to the question proposed by me, or the OP.

And yet it doesn't matter how we arrange it... four things is the same amount of things as two things and two things.

Right, and in that universe, five things is the same as two things and two things.  Take it or leave it. 

I don't think you even understand the use/mention distinction. At this point I feel it's definitely not a failure of my explanation, it's a failure of your understanding.

I do, it's just irrelevant. 

You're talking about the concepts of math instead of the truths of math then. I've been repeatedly trying to allude to the use/mention distinction and you keep showing me how you ARE making that error.

One of the truths of math, in that hypothetical universe, is that 2+2=5.

[The Grand Nudger]

Two things and two things will always be equal to four things whether we call the answer "5" or not.

...except in the hypothetical - apparently magical -

Yup, goddidit.  That's the part of the conjecture that got scrubbed when OP pigeon flew the coop, lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

Two things and two things will always be equal to four things whether we call the answer "5" or not.

...except in the hypothetical - apparently magical - universe we are conceptualizing where axiomatically, that is not the case.

5 things is a particular amount that is different to 4. 4 is the same amount as 2+2. In another universe something can be labelled differently, A can be labelled as "B" but A still =A whether it's labelled "B" or not. 4 things are still 4 things/2 things and 2 things is still 2 things and 2 things/1 less than 5 things is still 1 less than 5 things, whether we label it as "4", "5", "elephant", "cheesecake" or "cactus buttsex" or not.

 

In that apparently magical universe, 2+2=5 in actuality in every way that 2+2=4 here

That doesn't actually mean anything.

without violating identity

That does violate identity.,

and it isn't important to understand how this is so (or whether it makes sense to us) in order to answer the OP's question.

It can't be so because 2+2=4 because of the law of identity and the law of identity applies to the OP even if the OP says it doesn't because even by trying to give a hypothetical universe an identity without an identity, that itself is an identity. And the identity of 2+2 and 3+1 and 5-1 are all 4. They cannot be 5. The label can change but the identity can't if we are talking 2+2 in base 10.

If the OP is talking about 2+2 in a language other than base 10 then that's irrelevant anyway because then he's talking about the concepts/languages of other matematical and logical laws rather than the laws themselves. There can't be a logical or mathematical law where 4 objects is not 4 objects and 2+2 is merely the same thing expressed differently. 

In this hypothetical universe, 2 and 2 things put together equal 5 just as surely as they equal 4 here.

"2 things and 2 things" has the identity of four things. Four things have to be equal to four things, not give things. Other universes can have different concepts of mathematics where four things is labelled as "five things" but it's still four things.

The point is that the mathematical and logical absolutes are absolute. They're everywhere, it doesn't matter what universe or reality it is. A=A. 2 things and 2 things in base 10 is the same as 4 things in base 10. 4 objects are 4 objects. "Oh look, after the two things and two things came together an extra thing appeared"--"Doesn't matter, it was still four things before the extra thing appeared."--"Actually there was no time lag, two things and two things instantly became 5 things" "Two things and two things has the identity of 4 and that's 1 less than 5, sorry try again." "But in this universe..." "Sorry, try again." "But in this universe!!" "Ok, look, are we talking in base 10?" "No, in this universe it isn't base 10." "Well then you're talking about a different language and conceptualization of mathematics, not the law itself" "Oh fuck you're right except I'll never come to realize it. You're arguing with yourself because no one else understands." "I know, but I'm bored okay and I'm not breaking the rules of AF and they haven't told me they don't want me to talk to them about it anymore, k?" "K. You do you." "I do do me." "Why are you talking to yourself? Are you craze-ay?" "Nah, it's like I said, I'm bored because misunderstood." "Touché, myself, touché".

[Edwardo Piet]

We actually do..  I think it's irrational, unreasonable, meaningless. Nevertheless, it exists.

Hence we don't agree completely on it. So "actually we do" is false.

OFC I don't agree with you on the things which are false by simple reference to their existence in this very thread.  I'd have to be a complete moron.

I'm not talking about the mentioning of the hypotheticals I'm talking about the use of the hypotheticals. Yes the words of the hypothetical exist in this thread but the hypothetical fails to do what a hypothetical is supposed to do. It's incoherent. You can't have a hypothetical that hypothesizes the nonexistence of all of our logical laws when that includes the law of identity which is already presupposed in the hypothetical because it's presupposed in everything and it's an absolute logical law, it's a logical absolute, not merely one of "our" laws.

What's the point in bickering over the actuality of identity to which w both agree when it has nothing to do with the question asked?

We don't agree that we both agree. You keep telling me that something can be hypothesized without presupposing the law of identity, but it cant, because something can't be hypothessized without being hypothesized, without A=A.

 No point at all, but obviously, I;m incapable of helping you crawl out of the hole and so I point and laugh, and you're incapable of addressing the question asked..so you bicker with someone who agrees with you about identity.

Putting the blame on me isn't helpful. This is a two way thing. We're as stubborn as each other and we disagree about agreeing on everything. We disagree that the nature of identity is relevant to hypotheticals.

Maybe you're just a better man than I, Ham, lol. / shrugs

It's not a question of better. It's like, okay you're losing patience, but so what? What is the purpose in the jerk off emoticons? Are you just doing it for your own amusement? I can never understand it when anyone loses patience in a debate. I could argue about everything forever, but when you continue to do so -- it takes two to argue-- you're being just as stubborn as I am, and your losing patience in-between is not my problem. I enjoy every minute of it. If you want time out, say.

I am, yes, I'd enjoy it more if you could have a rational conversation about the point of contention, but failing that, so long as you persist, all that's left are jokes.

We're clearly not going to agree that the law of identity is relevant to all hypotheticals and presupposed in all of them, are we? We're also clearly never going to agree that two things and two things are always four things because it's the same thing or IOW it's based on the law of identity is true in all hypothetical and actual universes, A=A, are we?

I don't take any of it personally, take heart.  It's a game to me, including trash talking.  I know you;re stubborn.  You;re actually falling nto the same business you fel into last time with that argument you reminded me of, lol.  You think you;re so damned right you can;t realize that I'm not telling you that your wrong, just that what you're right about is irrelevant to the question proposed by me, or the OP.

Hey dude, I was right last time too. If we define "God" to mean "the universe" then God exists if by "God exists" we mean the universe exists, and so those who believe in the universe are theists if all we mean by that is that they believe in the universe. It's a retarded and ridiculous argument because the premises and definitions are silly, but the argument is still valid given that the premises are true.

]

And yet it doesn't matter how we arrange it... four things is the same amount of things as two things and two things.

Right, and in that universe, five things is the same as two things and two things.  Take it or leave it.

Correction. You mean "Five things" refers to two things and two things, two things and two things are still not five things.

I do, it's just irrelevant.

You said that the hypothetical of the OP is right here in this thread, no it isn't, the mentioning of it is. So yes it is relevant. 

One of the truths of math, in that hypothetical universe, is that 2+2=5.

Two things and two things can't be more than two things and two things. 5 things is not more or less then two things and two things then it's 4 things.