On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

@ Rhythm

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

I can't what, can't -logically- have it?  No shit...that's my position too, but obviously not for the reasons that have you so convinced..for reasons far...far simpler and less difficult to argue, lol.  That if such rules did exist and such a sum could be arrived at whatever those -clearly and explicitly different- rules were that lead to it would not be -logical- rules. We'd need a term to identify them as the set of rules which gives us entirely different answers for identical questions.

You know, answering the question rather than denying the hypothetical, lol. IOW, completely defeating the premise -regardless- of the truth of the hypothetical.

[Edwardo Piet]

I answered all this repeatedly throughout the thread. The hypothetical is meaningless without the law of identity and hence can't be true with it.

I addressed the question repeatedly. Stop fucking telling me I'm not addressing a question that's invalid.

Can't logically have it? Same fucking thing as can't have it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes I know, identity identity identity, but you still squawk that even when identity is -included-, so it obviously doesn't matter, you simply have a compulsion, lol.  

Cant have it and can't logically have it aren't the same thing, specifically in the hypothetical, and everytime you answer in this way you show that you have failed to address the question or consider the hypothetical.  

I'm just trying to help you not get eviscerated by an intelligent apologist, if one ever materializes, lol.  For example, since you allowed, a few pages back, that these different rules could be logical...what if I then declared that these other rules were the rules surrounding special revelation?  Well, you may not think that it's true, or that it ever happened, but you could not...then....disregard it on grounds of being illogical.  Special revelation is, thusly, made equivalent to logic...so long as I include identity alongside "god said it so it's true" and (as per identity) since it's true it cannot be untrue...no matter what I say god specially revelaed, no matter how it disagreed with anything you thought was true....it's logical, so says you.  

That's why I kept asking you if the inclusion of your pet rule was sufficient condition. That;ls also why I tried to help you understand that while we both agree that identity must hold in every possible universe, it doesn't mean what you think it means by itself, chiefly, that 2+2=4. The identity of the sum is whatever it is...in whatever uinverse we are rreferring to...and in a universe where 2+2 -is- 5, identity holds to 5. Identity is referent, not a standalone concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's another fun, intuitive way to understand why "identity identity identity" doesn't work for the hypothetical...which I've alluded to before.

A 5 is a 5 is a 5.  
-The hypothetical
Two fives, playing blackjack, is 10.
Two fives, playing poker, is a pair. 

-The question
Is poker blackjackical?

Now, please, object by telling me that two fives can't be a pair because two fives is ten and so poker cant exist because of the rules of blackjack and "identity identity identity"? Meanwhile, I've only asked you whether or not poker is blackjackical. Is a five being a five, and ten being ten, and a pair being a pair - all of these tacit acceptance of identity -within- each respective game (read: universe) sufficient condition to consider poker blackjackical...or do you think that poker might need it;s own name, to refer to apparent contradictions in conclusions -between- games (read: universes) by leveraging different rules? Say, a term like....poker?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I know, identity identity identity, but you still squawk that even when identity is -included-, so it obviously doesn't matter, you simply have a compulsion, lol.  

As I have said repeatedly, you can't claim to have identity and then also claim "2+2=5". The identity of 2+2=4.

[Edwardo Piet]

Two fives, playing blackjack, is 10.

Two fives, playing poker, is a pair. 

Now, please, object by telling me that two fives can't be a pair because two fives is ten and so poker cant exist because of the rules of blackjack and "identity identity identity"?

It's extremely obvious that that's you equivocating.

And regarding the line of yours I bolded: It's hilarious you talk of me strawmanning when this is an extremely obvious strawman.

You've strawmanned me throughout this whole thread by repeatedly saying I haven't addressed the question when I have addressed it the way you wanted me to at least twice and addressed it many times more than that the way you didn't want me to: by saying the question is invalid and explaining why--giving my own objections. And you simply don't accept my objections. Which is fine. But don't tell me I'm not addressing a question when you know very well I think it's invalid because it's based on an incoherent premise.

Even when CD jumped in initially pages and pages ago to join in with you saying I wasn't addressing the question... I'd already addressed it once the way you wanted me to saying that "No it's not logical." Then I went on to say it's not logical because it's not even a successful hypothetical and you started saying over and over again that I wasn't addressing the question that I had already addressed... then CD jumped in to defend that bullshit when I'd already addressed it pages before.

It's like the child who asks the same question over and over when they don't like the answer I've already given them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes...it -is- extremely obvious that I'm equivocating.........

Your reason for -why- it's not logical is simply wrong. Don't take my word for it, go refresh yourself on the concepts. The law of identity does not, itself, state that 2+2=4. It simply doesn't. It is -because- the sum of two and two is four, in this universe...that the law of identity demands that all such operations yield 4. If that operation yielded something else, as it does in the OP example...then the law of identity would demand that it always yield -that- else, in whatever universe that it did so.

What purpose does it serve to get it quickly right for the obvious reason, that defeats the premise regardless of the truth of the hypothetical, if you then go on to bluster about some shit that's -entirely- illogical and frustration wityh being incapable of selling that argument leaves you in a position whereby you accidentally allow special revelation to be made equivalent to logic by the simple inclusion of your pet rule, as insufficioent as -that- is....and as you mistakenly interpreted it?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes hence why you're still talking about the concept of logic instead of logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because that's what the godamned OP was trying to get a sense of for fucks sake, lol.

"What does it mean for something to be logical, can something be different or yield different conclusions and still -be- logical."

If you're so thoroughly obsessed with identity that you'll allow anything which includes it - yes..even when it gets a different answer in a different universe- to be "logical" then just about anything can be logical. Identity is a -necessary- condition to be logical, but it is also an -insufficient- condition to be logical. Capiche?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Logical logical" is the only sense of logical. "Illogical logical" is an oxymoron.

The OP's question is essentailly "Can something illogical be logical?"... the answer to that is that the question is essentially asking "Can A= not A?".

The question makes no sense whatsoever.