This has nothing to do with reality. It has only to do with the cognitive concept contained in the verb to be.

?

You're confusing a linguistic concept with a physical concept simply because they share some words in common. Look beyond the words.

... Strange to build a big structure with the thought it may have to go some where some day...Why not just put it where you want it, like, in another state???

The axiom is expressed as A is A . But A stands for any concept... All concepts are conserved... A does not equal A... The conceptual dog does not equal the real dog... The conceptual dog IS the dog we know as real, so that if we talk about this dog or that dog, or the dog we will get when we cross these dogs -is still a dog, so you understand that reality changes, but the concepts do not change because if they did change, and did not hold their meaning, then they would be useless, and thought would be pointless, because it would never get beyond the first predicate...

This has nothing to do with reality. It has only to do with the cognitive concept contained in the verb to be.

It has everything to do with reality. When has something ever been illogical? or for that matter, what does A equal if its an illogical reality?

I think you're looking for something that isnt there...

Something is always logical, and nothing always wins the argument... How do you explain that???

When has something ever been illogical?

Magic!!!!!!!!!!

... sounds like a question for Godel ... he proved (much to the dismay of the mathematical world) that any system of axioms is incomplete - that there are statements within each system that are true but which cannot be deduced from the system's axioms ... thus, when you map any logic to the real world, there will be real-world truths that remain logically undeducible - that are not logical* ...

(* at least in principle )

Undeducible from what?

... sounds like a question for Godel ... he proved (much to the dismay of the mathematical world) that any system of axioms is incomplete - that there are statements within each system that are true but which cannot be deduced from the system's axioms ... thus, when you map any logic to the real world, there will be real-world truths that remain logically undeducible - that are not logical* ...

(* at least in principle )

To me, it seems no one goes logically to any party with only one axiom...

... or even just one logical system, for that matter? ... e.g., the system of axioms for billiard balls (1+1=2) is different than the system of axioms for raindrops (1+1=1) ... but is the idea of a pluralism of logical systems, um, logical?

EDIT: since I've gone and invoked the "p" word ... Scientific pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, one is not always one, but it can be.

With regard to the original question, I would ask Kielicious, what would be the difference between a logical and illogical universe? You would have to know this to determine if the universe is logical or illogical.

My basic answer to this question is that that everything is illogical, though we use the word logic to represent the most internally coherent of our interpretations. In other words, the terms have no absolute meaning. Asking whether the world is either logical or illogical is like asking whether the world is either red or blue, having already made the arbitrary assumption that everything is either red or blue.

The realilty we live in follows logic regardless if we understand it or not.

If there were no human brains in the universe, there would be neither logic nor illogic -- it would just be what it is. Logic and illogic are both judgements made by a human mind (based on some sort of understanding of the terms) -- but you cannot in any credible way prove that they are intrinsic aspects of reality.

With regard to the original question, I would ask Kielicious, what would be the difference between a logical and illogical universe? You would have to know this to determine if the universe is logical or illogical.

My basic answer to this question is that that everything is illogical, though we use the word logic to represent the most internally coherent of our interpretations. In other words, the terms have no absolute meaning. Asking whether the world is either logical or illogical is like asking whether the world is either red or blue, having already made the arbitrary assumption that everything is either red or blue.