On Logic and Alternate Universes

[The Grand Nudger]

Furthermore Rhythm fails to understand that 2+2=4 must apply to all universes and not just our own because two things and two things being four things is ultimately the same as saying four things is four things

No, it's not.  It's saying that the sum of two and two, is four.  

or A=A and again that's a law that even alternative universes can't violate. It's basic modal logic. Universes must correspond to logical absolutes such as A=A for them to even be logically possible... not the other way around. You can't have a hypothetical universe where A does not =A because that would be a hypothetical universe that wasn't a hypothetical universe. The whole meaning behind A=A is something is what it is. If that doesn't apply then everything is meaningless. All hypothetical unvierses and alternative laws of logic still presuppose the law of identity/A=A

You're describing a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

and 2+2=4 and 2+2=2+2 and 4=4, whether there are 'other' logical laws that are 'not our own' or not. Although my strong intuition is that the only logical absolutes that there are apply to all universes and all realities.... after all if there are multiple universes it's still all part of one reality.

It;s not an issue of logical laws, as was explained to you.  It's an issue of enumeration.  There's a reason we don't count 1, 3, 5 - and it isn't logic, nor is it the law of identity, lol.
 

lol. And you even got confused bullshit like 2+2 can =5 because 'in another universe something else could pop into existence' That's so fucking confused. 2+2=4 + another thing isn't 2+2=5 it's 2+2=4 + another thing

That's what it would be here, and that's the only way to describe it here.  But if that other thing popped into existence, there...they wouldn't count 1, 2, 3 4...they'd count 1, 3 5 and the notion of 2+2 (a nonexistent quantity to them) would seem nonsensical.  Other Ham would be yammering on about "identity, identity, identity" against the very notion of 2 or 4, or that 2 and 2 was 4. Because 1+1=3, and 3+1=5, and this must be true in all universes.

[FallentoReason]

Other Ham would be yammering on about "identity, identity, identity" against the very notion of 2 or 4, or that 2 and 2 was 4. Because 1+1=3, and 3+1=5, and this must be true in all universes.

^This. Possibly the only thing Rhythm and I will agree on.

[Edwardo Piet]

Furthermore Rhythm fails to understand that 2+2=4 must apply to all universes and not just our own because two things and two things being four things is ultimately the same as saying four things is four things

No, it's not.  It's saying that the sum of two and two, is four.  

That's the same thing.

You're describing a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

The law of identity doesn't have to be sufficient in all universes to be necessary in all universes.

It;s not an issue of logical laws, as was explained to you.  It's an issue of enumeration.  There's a reason we don't count 1, 3, 5 - and it isn't logic, nor is it the law of identity, lol.

No, I was just shown a bunch of equivocations.

Yes it is logic. Enumeration is a logical process. Two things together with two other things are, logically, four things.

That's what it would be here, and that's the only way to describe it here.

You're equivocating again. You're talking about an alternative conceptualization.

 But if that other thing popped into existence, there...they wouldn't count 1, 2, 3 4...they'd count 1, 3 5 and the notion of 2+2 (a nonexistent quantity to them) would seem nonsensical.

See? Doesn't matter how they count it it doesn't change the fact it would still be four things and then an extra thing popping into existence.

 Other Ham would be yammering on about "identity, identity, identity" against the very notion of 2 or 4, or that 2 and 2 was 4.   Because 1+1=3, and 3+1=5, and this must be true in all universes.

No, all you're messing about with is different labels.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the same thing.

No?  

The law of identity doesn't have to be sufficient in all universes to be necessary in all universes.

You misunderstand.  I'm agreeing with you that the law of identity is necessary to all logical universes, simply mentioning that it is not -sufficient- for a designation as a logical universe.  More is required.  That's our only point of disagreement with regards to the question asked. I don;t grant the designation of "logical" on a universe just because it adheres to identity. Necessary condition, yes...sufficient condition, no.

No, I was just shown a bunch of equivocations.

Yes it is logic. Enumeration is a logical process. Two things together with two other things are, logically, four things.

If that were true, if math and reason were equivalent, we wouldn't need to discuss any of this, we could feed things into a truth machine.  Anything capable of simple addition ought to be able to crack open the mysteries of the universe....and yet.....

You're equivocating again. You're talking about an alternative conceptualization.

Actually, I'm talking about an alternative universe, where the math that exists and is correct is referent to relationships in that universe, not ours.  Just as the math that exists and is correct in ours is referent to relationships in our universe...but not theirs.  

See? Doesn't matter how they count it it doesn't change the fact it would still be four things and then an extra thing popping into existence.

Again, you see it that way because of the realtionships between quantities iin -our- universe.  Their universe is different, they would see it differently, and consider you to be wrong.  They could even demonstrate that you were wrong.  

No, all you're messing about with is different labels.

When you say that, it shows me that you haven't understood what I'm saying. You do realize that this is a pretty heated discussion within philosophical circles, right, an open question? You didn't really think that OP came up with this shit out of thin ai, did you? He aint that bright. I'm -not- telling you that 5 is 4, that the sum of 2 and 2 in that universe is still 4, but I'm adding one. I'm trying to help you understand that in such a universe there would -be- no 4. It would be an alien concept that no one could describe except by counter factual or contra intuitive hypothetical. Because, point of fact refrent -to- that universe, no one would have ever seen 4 of anything. It;s not something happens, there, it doesn't refer to anything , there...it's just scribbling.

What does it mean for something to be logical. Could something follow different rules and still be logical. The value of examples is not as an existential claim to be compared with similar claims in our own universe, but a description of the context in which the questions sense and meaning can be illuminated. In a universe where 2+2=5 (or any other counter-factual or contra-intuitive proposition) -is- true.....can there be a system for determining the truth of the proposition, and if so, is it a logical system? The value of the example and the question isn;t limited only to hypothetical universes, ofc...because we could be living in just such a universe. It may be that there are other rules here, different to our currently known rules, or our rules may be incomplete (leading, for example, to seeming paradoxes). It;s also true that other systems of inference -do- exist...the western tradition isn't the only tradition. Are those other traditions logical? You really are having a forest for the trees moment, on this one. Identity is a single tree. The question being asked, is how many more trees might there be in the forest, and, can you systematically arrive at truth, can you have a forest - in the metaphor, even without that single tree? You can't answer that question by intently staring at the tall pine directly in front of you.

[Edwardo Piet]

No?

Two things and two things is also four things or three things and one thing or one less than five things. They're all labels for the same quantity, which is four.

You misunderstand.  I'm agreeing with you that the law of identity is necessary to all logical universes, simply mentioning that it is not -sufficient- for a designation as a logical universe.  More is required.  

Irrelevant. The OP is still presupposing laws implictly which it attempts to hypothetically deny, but fails to do so because of the implicit presupposition. You can't even have a hypothetical (A) that is a hypothetical (A) without an A (hypothetical) that  =  (is) A (a hypothetical). You can't even have a hypothetical with two things and two things being five things because you can't have a hypothetical where four things (A) are (=) five things (not A).

If that were true, if math and logic were equivalent, we wouldn't need to discuss any of this, we could feed things into a truth machine.  Anything capable of simple addition ought to be able to crack open the mysteries of the universe....and yet.....

You're equivocating again. You're talking about the concepts of math and logic not being the same. It doesn't change the process being the same.

Actually, I'm talking about an alternative universe, where the math that exists and is correct is referent to relationships in that universe, not ours.

Which is you equivocating again.

 Just as the math that exists and is correct in ours is referent to relationships in our universe...but not theirs.

What is referred to is the same. The fact that you are talking about different referents demonstrates that you're just talking about different labels. I'm saying in all universes two things and two things will always be four things. It doesn't matter if an extra thing pops into existence  every time and in that universe they therefore have no concept of "4". That is all utterly irrelevant. Before the extra thing pops into existence it's still four things, not five things. And 2+2 + 1 =/= 2+2 + 0.

Again, you see it that way because of the realtionships between quantities iin -our- universe.  Their universe is different, they would see it differently, and consider you to be wrong.  They could even demonstrate that you were wrong.

No they could not because you're still making a use mention error and equivocating and if they claimed to be able to demonstrate such a thing they'd be equivocating just as much as you are. It doesn't matter how they conceptualize things in their universe, that's all irrelevant. The fact you mention that  "they would see it differently" demonstrates that you're talking about them having a different perspective rather than a different logical reality, the fact you say that they would consider me to be wrong demonstrates that you're talking about them considering the same things to be different rather than things actually being different. Two things and two things simply are four things otherwise someone is equivocating.

When you say that, it shows me that you haven't understood what I'm saying.

That's what you think.

 You do realize that this is a pretty heated discussion within philosophical circles, right, an open question?  You didn't really think that OP came up with this shit out of thin ai, did you?  He aint that bright.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Some philosophers dispute the use/mention distinction too. Some philosophers believe a lot of incorrect things. "Cheese" absolutely is derived from the Old English word "cyse". Cheese absolutely is derived from milk. The only philosophers who disagree with that are either deluded or, far more often, equivocating. It's exactly the same with those who claim that 2+2 can =5 in other universes.

Yes I am aware that the OP didn't come out with this out of thin air. And yes I am aware of his lack of intelligence.

I've debated this exact thing many times before over the years. In fact, many many years ago, when I was 19, I used to take up  your own illogical position.

What does it mean for something to be logical.

Well you eliminate what is not logical, what you are left with, is what is logical. A= not A and 2+2=5 certainly are not logical. They are therefore impossible. Yes even hypothetically. The logical absolutes I am talking about are called The Laws of Thought for a reason. You can't even imagine a hypothetical, or imagine anything at all, that violates them. When you think you have thought of a hypothetical that has violated it you are simply mistaken. It is unviolatable. Just because it's possible to write a sentence where you tautologically say "If the law of identity didn't apply then it wouldn't apply" doesn't mean that such a sentence doesn't already, ironically, presuppose the law of identity by virtue of its being a tautology. Something literally can't exist in any sense whether real or imagined, hypothetical or non-hypothetical, if A= not A. When we say A=A we mean that something is itself. You can't violate that. A hypothetical that isn't a hypothetical is not a hypothetical. Two things and two things that are claimed to be five things is either not actually five things or not actually two things and two things. This is demonstrated by the fact you have to mentally-gymnast yourself by adding the extra thing popping into existence part. Thereby equivocating rather than addressing what I'm saying. It's your way to wriggle out of my words without dealing with what they refer to.

 Could something follow different rules and still be logical.

Sure. It just has to follow the logical absolutes too, that's all.

 The value of examples is not as an existential claim, but a description of the context in which the questions sense and meaning can be illuminated.

I'm just saying they're unimaginainable, unconceptualizable worthless examples. Non-existent examples. What you think is there is not there because you're missing out what's presupposed.

I know what the OP is driving at but my whole point is that he can't successfully come up with any examples no matter how much he tries because it's not that by doing so he would violate the logical absolutes, it's that he can't possibly violate the logical absolutes because they're impossible to violate. If he thinks he has come up with a hypothetical that violates it he is simply mistaken and kidding himself.

So the question is, why does it look like, at least to you guys,--not to me--that he has successfully came up with a hypothetical that violates it? It's because you're looking at the visible text and visible explicit premise of the OP and not considering the invisible implicit premise of the logical absolutes which, logically, absolutely must be presupposed.

In a universe where 2+2=5 (or any other counter-factual or contra-intuitive proposition) -is- true.....can there be a system for determining the truth of the proposition, and if so, is it a logical system?

You don't understand the implications of the non-meaning of your own quesiton. You're asking me whether an alternative universe where something is not what it itself is (or at least counter intuitive laws as opposed to an impossible one) can have beings living in it that have alternative conceptual systems that aim to derive at the truth just like ours do--or in other words they have an alternative conceptual system of logic--and whether their system would be a logical system like ours is.

First of all, your example, "2+2=5", which equates to something being what it isn't, is, once again, a non-example.

Now to deal with other hypothetical counter intuitive laws of logic opposed to that impossible one:

Yes they are logically possible if they don't violate the logical absolutes. Or in other words they're possible if they're logically possible.

Can other beings have alternative conceptualizations? Yes they can but that doesn't deal with the laws themselves. When you're talking about a 'system of logic' you're talking about the concepts rather than the laws. Our system is how we make sense of the absolute laws that apply to all universes. Other universes can have creatures living in it that have other systems that make sense of the same laws. They can also have other laws altogether, but only in addition to the absolutes which we already know, or should know and do know when we understand the logic behind it, but they can't have any logical laws that violate the logical absolutes, regardless of the universe. It's logically impossible. Logical absolutes apply to all universes, that's what makes them absolute. Any thing logically contradictory is not possible in any universe because for any thing to be any thing at all it has to be itself and not not be itself. It has to obey both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. These are beyond-universal laws, these are absolute laws. They are unviolatable. If you think you can have a hypothetical unvierse without them you're simply not talking about what you think you're talking about. A hypothetical universe without such laws wouldn't be a hypothetical universe.

An llogical thing is literally a non-thing. All things must be logical. We call something someone says "illogical" when we're saying that what they're saying makes no sense. All the things that do make sense are the only things that are actual things. They fail to refer to what they think they are referring to. There's nothing illogical about their inability to say something logical. There's nothing illogical. We simply refer to their inability to speak of the logical as their being "illogical."

Why is there no such thing as an illogical contradiction? Because even when something is supposedly "illogical", it can only ever be contradictory logically speaking, not illogically speaking. Not because logic is not all-reaching but because it is all-reaching. That which fails to conform to logic does not exist.

Even that which contradicts logic must do so by virtue of the laws of logic

Our conceptualization of the logical absolutes is merely our own conceptualizaiton of them. But the logical absolutes themselves that we can come to undersatand once we conceptualize them? They're absolute and independent of our success at conceptualizing them.

 The value of the example and the question isn;t limited only to hypothetical universes, ofc...because we could be living in just such a universe.  It may be that there are other rules here, different to our currently known rules, or our rules may be incomplete (leading, for example, to seeming paradoxes).  It;s also true that other systems of inference -do- exist...the western tradition isn't the only tradition.  Are those other traditions logical?

If they're possible, they're logical. Not in all senses, no. I don't mean they're realistic or reasonable. I mean if they're logically possible they're, logically, logically possible. It doesn't matter if they're different logical laws, if they're logical laws they're, logically, logical laws. But they can only exist if they obey logical absolutes.

Basically, any kind of logical laws can exist and all logical laws must be logical if and only if they're based upon logical absolutes that pervade all universes.

The logical absolutes are not omniscient because they're mindless and they cannot have any separate existence from reality, they are reality, and they're not omnipotent because reality itself's logical power is not unlimited: but they're absolutely omnipresent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ham, you're dong it again.  You're not listening to me, nor are you responding to me.   You're using my statements as an excuse to rub one out to your fetish.  

You don't even need me to participate to do that, you can handle it all by yourself, right?

[Edwardo Piet]

You think that's what I'm doing when really I'm showing you that you're equivocating and it doesn't matter whatever position you take absolutely every thing, hypothetical or non-hypothetical must presuppose the absolute truth of A=A and 2+2=4. It's completely irrelevant how things are counted in other universes. How things are counted in other universes =/= how things are in all universes.

I'm talking about absolute truths that apply to all universes and different systems are irrelevant to laws that are absolutely absolute and beyond universal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here, let me just slide right past all the shit that gets you so worked up.  I think we can do that and make progress. Particularly in that i can isolate this attempt to answer the question from all the rest.

If they're possible, they're logical. Not in all senses, no. 

b-mine

It's the bolded bit, that the question is actually asking you.  So, you've got a "yes and no" answer, on your hands.

I don't mean they're realistic or reasonable. I mean if they're logically possible they're, logically, logically possible. 

Right, and this wasn't the question, which is why I've been trying to steer you past it. Logical possibility can only refer to what we know, and our logical laws. Patently useless in the hypothetical of more or different laws.

It doesn't matter if they're different logical laws, if they're logical laws they're, logically, logical laws. 

This begs the question....the question being "are those laws, whatever they are, logical laws" Answering that question with "if they're logical laws then they're logical laws"......doesn't quite cut it, does it?

But they can only exist if they obey logical absolutes.

[color=#333333]Not the question.  Nor, honestly, anything a reasonable person should claim.  Logical laws do not proscribe what can or cannot exist.  They simply describe what we can and cannot rationally infer about -whatever exists-. Reason isn;t a force exerting an effect on the world, making things fall into line, preventing things from being.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here, let me just slide right past all the shit that gets you so worked up.  I think we can do that and make progress.

Righty dokey.

If they're possible, they're logical. Not in all senses, no.

b-mine

It's the bolded bit, that the question is actually asking you.  So, you've got a "yes and no" answer, on your hands.

Are they logical in the sense of reasonable or realistic? Intutively I would say, no. I think when it comes to logical laws, it's the same laws for all universes. After all, all universes are part of the same reality... or perhaps I should say "If all universes are not part of the same reality, then what do we call the totality of all universes if not "reality"?"

IMO, logical laws are absolute and metauniversal, not universal. We've already found logical absolutes that must apply to all universes, so my intuition says they're all like that, not just some of them.

I don't mean they're realistic or reasonable. I mean if they're logically possible they're, logically, logically possible.

Right, and this wasn't the question, which is why I've been trying to steer you past it.  Logical possibility can only refer to what we know, and our logical laws.  Patently useless in the hypothetical of more or different laws.

Well yeah but I'm including things that are logically possible even hypothetically in all universes, remember. What is impossible in all universes even as a hypothetical? A= not A or 2+2=5. A hypothetical where A = not A is a hypothetical that is not a hypothetical. A hypothetical where the sum of two things and two things is not the sum of two things and two things is a hypothetical that is not a hypothetical.

It doesn't matter if they're different logical laws, if they're logical laws they're, logically, logical laws.

This begs the question....the question eing "are those laws, whatever they are, logical laws"

Lol. Not it doesn't beg the question, it answers the question. If they're not logical laws they're, logically, not logical laws. Of course they're logical laws if they're alternative logical laws.

But they can only exist if they obey logical absolutes.

Not the question.

The question implicitly presupposes logical absolutes despite explictly denying them. I've already addressed the question repeatedly. Saying "the question doesn't make as much sense as you think it does, even hypothetically." is an answer to the question. Saying "it cannot violate the logical absolutes so it cannot be logical" is also answering the question. Saying "Even if it's an alternative logical law it's still logical because it's still a logical law." is also answering the question. These are all answers to the question.

Nor, honestly, anything a reasonable person should claim.  Logical laws do not proscribe what can or cannot exist.

The logical absolutes do. Something that is not something cannot be something. Something nonexistent can't be existent. Not A cannot =A.

They simply describe what we can and cannot rationally infer about -whatever exists-.

Nah you're equivocating and talking about the conceptualization of the logical absolutes instead of the logical absolutes again. Our concepts that describe the logical absolutes describe what we cannot rationally infer about whatever exists. The logical absolutes themselves are whatever logically must be the case and cannot not be the case regardless of what we can nor cannot infer and regardless of whether we even exist. Whatever is, is. That's just an absolute metauniversal fact. Which universe it is or whether it's hypothetical or not is irrelevant. Our own conceptualization of "whatever is, is" referring to the absolute metauniversal fact that whatever is is, is itself not a metauniversal fact because there can be other conceptualizations of the metauniversal fact that whatever is, is which may not be "whatever is, is" but instead be something like "Zeebonk boobonk squoop muck dork" or even an entirely different system of logic describing the same logical absolute that whatever is, is. But it must describe the same thing.

"Whatever is, is" being how we describe the fact that whatever is is in our won particular universe =/= the absolute fact that whatever is is regardless of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh for fucks sake Ham, lets pare it down again, because god forbid you be wrong about anything on the internet..lol.

Are they logical in the sense of reasonable or realistic? Intutively I would say, no. 

Logical in the sense of being logical rules.  Would you extend the term you use for the rules you accept to the rules you do not (or do not know about)...if they existed, and if they performed the same function - systematically leading to true conclusions?