On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

Equivocation by who's account Rhythm? You like to restrict the use of "logical" in a way that the broader English community wouldn't. I have given the definitions, and according to those definitions we can say any set of axioms are inherently logical. I still haven't heard you trying to refute the OP as it reads.

What do you think of dictionaries?

[Excited Penguin]

I think he's merely using this unfortunate mathematical blunder as a metaphor for a state of things (from a hypothetical parallel universe)  that is alien to our own. Bad choice of exposition by example in this case.

If one wishes to discuss something one should take care to best explain and perfect what they mean to discuss, especially after the other parties have expressed their confusion - however indirectly.

@FtR,
It's not our jobs to disentangle your actual point from this mess. It's yours.

[FallentoReason]

No, what it is, is a universe like nothing you can imagine. Forget 3-d space, that's for beginner universes. Gravity? Don't need it. This is what you're supposed to get out of "2 + 2 = 5", that this universe is weird. It doesn't run on the same stuff as ours. And that is impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds, so the best I could do was to give an impossible sum and hypothesize it to be true.

Yet another weird ass claim about a silly hypothetical.  Obviously it;s not impossible to comprehend with our conditioned minds.  I'm having no trouble.  You've just baffled some of the posters here with bullshit...they keep thinking there must be more to this than there is, some deeper flaw or fundamental misstep, it must be -impossible-...it just must be. No, it mustn't be, and even if it's possible or even -actual-, it just isn't logical, lol.

I'm trying to help them imagine for just 1 second. This is philosophy 101 in session lol.

You want it to be different, so let it be different, and stop trying to call it the thing you intentionally made it different to.

Inaccurate understanding of the word "logical". Please refer to the dictionary.

[FallentoReason]

I think he's merely using the mathematical blunder as a symbol for a state of things (from a hypothetical parallel universe)  that is alien to ours. Bad choice of exposition by example in this case. If one wishes to discuss something one should take care to best explain what he means to discuss, especially after the other parties have expressed their confusion, however indirectly.

I figured it's too late for that. I wouldn't want the confused parties to claim victory for their straw man if they see me "backing out" of bloody 2 + 2 = 5 being a thing somewhere else.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said...there it is, if anyone wonders if there's anything else going on...the man is referring us to the dictionary, lol.

I've accepted your hypothetical. 2+2=5 in some alternative universe, somehow. Whatever rules must be at play to make that true, they clearly aren't the same rules that we refer to when we use the term. You don't even disagree with this, they are different rules. As such, calling those rules "logical" is simply nonsense. Give them their own name, add an "al" to the end of that...and be done with it....just like last time.

[Edwardo Piet]

Is your hypothetical universe with its laws logical, OP? No, your hypothetical unvierse has been mentioned as a bunch of symbols but has failed to even been hypothesized, your hypothetical presupposes that it is your hypothetical, it presuppoes that is is something being defined, any tautology used to back itself as a premise presupposes the LOI as does everything else, and so when your hypothetical says that it doesn't it contradicts itself and falls apart. I can't even answer whether such a universe is logical because such a universe has failed to be even hypothetisized. All you've done is tried and attempted to do so and shown us a bunch of meaningless symbols without realizing that it's meaningless not just because it's different to "our" logic, but also because it presupposes one of "our" laws, the law of identity whilst explictly claiming to do otherwise.

In a sense I could say that your unvierse is 100% illogical because it's illogical in the sense of non-logical, or not logical, because it can't be logical because it can't be anything. Because it can't exist even as a hypothetical because self-contradictory things can't exist even as hypotheticals, you can't even imagine a square-circle. You can't even imagine a universe without the law of identity or without absolute truths that presuppose it like 2+2=4. 2+2=5 invalidates the law of identity which means your hypothetical can't exist as what it claims to be explicitly, it has to exist with the law of identity implicitly and hidden, and with it misrepresenting itself by claiming to explictly be something which is self-contradictorily implicitly presupposing otherwise by virtue of existing even as a hypothetical. It can't exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be defined as a hypothetical without the law of identity without being a hypothetical without the law of identity, which would mean it was a hypothetical with one.

A hypothetical defined without the law of identity has the identity of not having one. Please understand that it's impossible to define anything at all or have a hypothetical at all without presupposing the law of identity. And please understand that 2+2=4 is just an alternative way of saying 4=4 or A=A. It's just the law of identity again. You can't imagine something logically impossible. You can't imagine a square circle, you can't imagine A= not A. You can image the WORDS "a square circle" or "A= not A" you can label it, but you can't imagine it itself. And in exactly the same way, because we're talking logical/mathematical absolutes here (math is just logic in numbers and logic is just math in text) 2+2=4 as A=A and as all bachelors are unmarried and 2+2 does not = 5 as A does not = mpt A and no bachelors are married.

2+2=4 is a tautology. A=A is a tautology. The law of identity is the fundamental truth that all tautologies have to be true and the most fundamental of all is A=A or 1=1.

It doesn't matter what universe it is, A=A, bachelors are always unmarried, there are no square circles and 2+2=4 (talking base 10 here), period.

[Excited Penguin]

I think he's merely using the mathematical blunder as a symbol for a state of things (from a hypothetical parallel universe)  that is alien to ours. Bad choice of exposition by example in this case. If one wishes to discuss something one should take care to best explain what he means to discuss, especially after the other parties have expressed their confusion, however indirectly.

I figured it's too late for that. I wouldn't want the confused parties to claim victory for their straw man if they see me "backing out" of bloody 2 + 2 = 5 being a thing somewhere else.

It's never too late if your goal is discussion. You do this well(or try to)  and I'll take your side against anyone who gives you a hard time for it.

[FallentoReason]

Like I said...there it is, if anyone wonders if there's anything else going on...the man is referring us to the dictionary, lol.

I've accepted your hypothetical. 2+2=5 in some alternative universe, somehow. Whatever rules must be at play to make that true, they clearly aren't the same rules that we refer to when we use the term. You don't even disagree with this, they are different rules. As such, calling those rules "logical" is simply nonsense. Give them their own name, add an "al" to the end of that...and be done with it....just like last time.

Why can't we call both sets rules of logic? Distinct, but both being rules of logic?

[FallentoReason]

I can't even answer whether such a universe is logical because such a universe has failed to be even hypothetisized.

Consider this hypothetical:

There exists a post office. In this post office, we are told we need to find a letter with a square circle on it. Do you have to look through all the letters to know if it's there or not?

[Edwardo Piet]

I've accepted your hypothetical.  2+2=5 in some alternative universe, somehow.

See. You're at least saying that much of what the OP is saying and we certainly do not agree there. I've only ever been disagreeing about this, so telling I'm agreeing with you when I've been talking about this disagreement the whole time is a strawman. You can't say I'm not addressing the OP's question when the question is based on a hypothetical that I don't even agree exists, all that exists is the words not the meaning the words are supposed to represent. So saying "it's right here in this thread" is a use/mention error. The words that the OP is trying to make into a hypothetical is here, but the hypothetical itself is not, because such a thing the OP is trying to get us to imagine cannot actually be imagined, because he's talking the mathematical equivalent of square circles, because we're already talking base 10, because we're not talking alternative mathematical languages, because we're talking about logical and mathematical absolutes not their concepts or languages.

This whole thing has been a bunch of your repeatedly equivocating. I can always spot equivocation. It's my speciality.

No, it's wrong to accept such a hypothetical. You can accept the mentioning and the existence of the words here on AF "If there is a universe where 2+2=5 then 2+2=5" but such a thing has failed to actually be imagined or hypothesized. You can't have two things and two things that equates to one thing more than itself. Just like you can't have A that = not A or a bachelor that is married or a square circle. What universe it is or whether it's hypothetical or not is irrelevant, and you need to stop making use/mention errors when you say the hypothetical is right here. The words are right here, but the meaning is not. The meaning of "2+2=5" is meaningless, it can't be hypothesized, it can't be imagined, it can merely be mentioned and written. You can't have the tautology "if 2+2=5 then 2+2=5" because that violates the law of identity when it's a tautology that presupposes the law of identity.