On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I know, by arguing about something else.  Here, let me try to break through your thick ass skull in another way.  Without any hypothetical other universe that sets you into a "cannot be, cannot be, cannot be" loop.

If, in -this- universe...there were some different ruleset, which we found to give more accurate, and also disparate, answers to the questions we currently answer with what we call logical rules....do you think it would be correct or useful..to call whatever those rules were, logical rules - or would they need their own term?

Note, please...that the conjecture is not that there -is- a better set....I;m not asking you whether or not there -could be- a better set...I'm only asking you one thing. If there were, would you call them logical, or something else?

[GrandizerII]

I would say nothing at all should violate logical absolutes.

Nothing can.

We should never be too confident about the law of identity or other logical laws/absolutes holding unconditionally in every single form of reality there may be. That would be folly.

It would be silly to not be absolutely confident about something absolute.

You can't define a reality where it doesn't apply, that's the whole point.

To be clear, I'm not saying at all we should not always rely on logic in order to arrive at all truths we can arrive at, or that we should entertain the use of some "illogic" to determine truths about this reality we're in.

There may be other forms of logic that are illogical to us and so we call them "illogic" but such "illogic" still has to conform to A=A. Everything does.

All definitions and all tautologies must conform to A=A.

But at the same time, let's not absolutely assert that every aspect/form of this reality must absolutely unconditionally conform to logic.

Absolutely everything has to conform to the logical absolutes.

It would be nonsense, of course, if it did not conform absolutely to logic, but you just never know.

Total nonsense that violates A=A cannot exist. You can't have something that isn't something. You can't have A that doesn't=A. A that isn't A or something that isn't something is nothing.

Yes, everything you're saying is logical, good. I don't disagree with the logic.

I don't like thinking in absolutes, though. Especially about the whole ultimate reality or whatever it is we happen to be in. Consider it a personality thing, I just refuse to think in absolutes. And that's all I'll say on this topic.

[Edwardo Piet]

If, in -this- universe...there were some different ruleset, which we found to give more accurate, and also disparate, answers to the questions we currently answer with what we call logical rules....do you think it would be correct or useful..to call whatever those rules were, logical rules - or would they need their own term?

If they were in some sense logical then I think it would be correct or useful to call them logical, yes. Could these different rules exist without A=A? No.

Note, please...that the conjecture is not that there -is- a better set....I;m not asking you whether or not there -could be- a better set...I'm only asking you one thing.  If there were, would you call them logical, or something else?

The problem was every time until now you've spoke not only of another set of rules but also a set of rules where either A does not =A or 2+2=5,

The point is the OP hypothetical fails. If all the OP said was "If there was a universe with another set of rules then there would be a universe with another set of rules but 2+2 still =4 and A still =A" then that would have been fine.

If the different rules were logical then of course I'd call them logical... it's only if they contradict logical absolutes that they can't be logical because they can't even exist hypothetically if they contradict logical absolutes.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, everything you're saying is logical, good. I don't disagree with the logic.

Hehe, good.

I don't like thinking in absolutes, though. Especially about the whole ultimate reality or whatever it is we happen to be in.

All reality and all existence has to be in some sense objective and absolute though. Even our own subjectivity is ontologically objective and absolute. We wouldn't be here to imagine things as subjects if our subjectivity didn't exist objectively and if subjects weren't in some sense objects. Subjectivity (conscious experience), when it exists, has ontology and ontology is always objective. Ontology may or may not have subjectivity (conscious experience) but it always has objectivity. You can have something that is both subjective and objective in an ontological sense... you just can't have something that is both subjective and objective in the epistemic sense.

Consider it a personality thing, I just refuse to think in absolutes.

Hehe. But do you absolutely refuse to think in absolutes? [emoji6]

And that's all I'll say on this topic.

Fair enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they were in some sense logical then I think it would be correct or useful to call them logical, yes. Could these different rules exist without A=A? No.

Ham, stop, include identity if you like, I certainly would.....is the inclusion of that particular rule, which has been included in all previous examples of mine and this example...sufficient condition to call the rules logical;.  What if, -in this universe-..those newer, more accurate rules yielded 2+2=5?  See why it never mattered, now?

The problem was every time until now you've spoke not only of another set of rules but also a set of rules where either A does not =A or 2+2=5,

Your misapprehension of the law of identity is neither my problem nor relevant to the question.  You just couldn;t fucking do it, could you, you couldn't let it go, lol....

The point is the OP hypothetical fails. If all the OP said was "If there was a universe with another set of rules then there would be a universe with another set of rules but 2+2 still =4 and A still =A" then that would have been fine.

Who cares about the OP point...are you really still arguing about the OP in response to the new formulation I offered you?   You're hopeless.  

If the different rules were logical then of course I'd call them logical... it's only if they contradict logical absolutes that they can't be logical because they can't even exist hypothetically if they contradict logical absolutes.

Say -some- of them were the rules you knew...like...say as we've been doing for some time, we included identity...but still, because different is different, it yielded "different".  Is that inclusion enough, in your estimation, is it sufficient condition... to call them logical?  I want to make sure here, because I'm about to really piss you off...if you're comfortable calling them logical despite being different, even if they include -some- of the same things...and when I say piss you off, I mean -really- piss you off.  Neo is gonna giggle though. If I can get you to jhust sign on, for clarity, so there's no wiggling. So think, think real hard, about whether or not your sideline, irrelevant argument, is really all that important to you....

Just one more time, for the record...if the rules were different, more accurate...and yeilded disparate conclusions to what you know based on the laws you know..as you know them...so long as we included your favorites......you're comfortable calling them logical, Ham? Using the same term for whatever it is I'm about to say...provided it meets all of those metrics just mentioned? That's how important it is to you, to have that irrelevant argument that has -nothing- to do with the question asked? One more fucking time, please, state for the record...after 28 pages so there aren't 29...that you're onboard so far.

[FallentoReason]

The point is the OP hypothetical fails. If all the OP said was "If there was a universe with another set of rules then there would be a universe with another set of rules but 2+2 still =4 and A still =A" then that would have been fine.

If 2 + 2 = 4 then that's not another set of rules.

[GrandizerII]

Hehe. But do you absolutely refuse to think in absolutes? [emoji6]

I get what you're saying. Logically speaking, I am being nonsensical and contradicting myself.

[harmonlang]

But goblygoop giving them 5 is okay, or not?

That symbol '5' would still represent the concept 4, no?

I was thinking the same..

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you would have been thinking wrong.  The hypothetical is not an issue of relabeling 4.  It concerns the possibility of whether or not the rules which lead, in an alternate universe,  to 2+2 being 5(...as in five, not 4, not 6, five...), as being described as "logical".

The majority of this thread has been peoples hangups on the hypothetical leading to the complete exclusion of any consideration of the question, lol. So stuck on not only the idea that 2+2=4, but also it's impenetrable truth and universality...that they didn't notice the question.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hehe. But do you absolutely refuse to think in absolutes? [emoji6]

I get what you're saying. Logically speaking, I am being nonsensical and contradicting myself.

"Illogical sense" is a oxymoron and "logical sense" is a tautology. Unless you're wanting to equivocate... in which case you're not making a successful argument.

"I'm contradicting myself and being nonsensical logically speaking." just means "I'm contradicting myself and being nonsensical."

@ Rhythm

Like I said repeatedly throughout this thread... you can't have 2+2=5.

@ FallenToReason

Not my problem. The fact you fail to create a premise with alternative logical rules that are logically possible is not my problem.

As me and Gemini were discussing recently: it's pretty basic modal logic that you can't have an alternative universe than violates the LOI and basic mathematics like "2+2=4" which is based upon it. And, like she said, the whole thing about "an extra thing popping into existence" in this 'alternative universe' is so very confused. That's got absolutely nothing to do with logic.