What you hope is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't in my world, then there is a problem with your phrase, it's not true "absolutely", or it would be "in my world".
And if you think that's because "my world" is not logical, then that proves that what you say is wrong, the assumption that the world is tautologically logical.
For how could something absolutely logical (which would mean its deterministic) produce something not logical which actually is a part of that world in the first place? Even if "what is not logical" is how I perceive the world.
Think about it.
And as long as you reject the eventuality, the potential, the possibility, the chance that what your assumptions are are wrong, there is no way of communicating on this kind of issue.
I'm not trying to say what I say is true, I'm trying to say that what you say "may" be wrong, and as long as you stand on that as if it were some absolute, everything else which you think and deduce may be wrong as well without you even knowing it.
Unless you have the humility to criticise your own reasoning, you won't get any where fast.
And the OP is talking to a brick wall.
On that note, I'm fed up with being insulted, by the way I thought you put me on ignore?
Thing is, I can't and won't insult you back since that will just lead me to get banned (again).
Kids do that, fox news does that, the jerry springer show does that. Civilised people do that (check signature).
Was hoping this wasn't the case on this forum.
If anyone knows of a place where people actually talk and listen to each other, without flaming and insulting and resorting to character assassination and mockery whenever someone says something they don't understand or don't agree with, send me a pm thanks.
2 men + 2 women "functioning" together = more than the function of 1 man + 1 man + 1 woman + 1 woman
In my world, everything depends not on what things are but on what they do. And because no thing that I can observe actually does the same thing at any two points in time, nothing is ever identical, nothing is ever reflexive, and 2 + 2 as you see it, doesn't exist except when absolutely defined in the first place.
So for you "possible" refers to the "actual world", and here we are, is it possible to define the actual world without knowing about the actual world? Because even though we may know a lot about it, we certainly are far from knowing "most" of it aren't we?
For example, to apply logic to this assumes that the "actual world" is logical.
That may seem obviously true (that the actual world is logical) however, can we prove it?
I don't think so. So unless that point is included in the logic itself, for example :
Ax refers to an actual world which may not be logical (because we can't prove it).
Also, because it is an abstraction, it by definition, necessarily, tautologically, is a derivation.
Which means that there always is something "missing" when an abstraction is used by principle, as a matter of definition. That needs to be included as well, almost as if it were self defining. (like we are).
Unless that point is integrated within the abstraction itself, I can't see how anything that may be concluded from it will ever be "tautolically" true.