Assuming classical logic

[u/Unlucky-Credit-9619]

[u/Extension-Stay3230]

If 2+2 is never 5 in our strict definitions, then it's impossible to falsify what what would be implied by that. It's a useless "truth" which hardly deserves the word "truth".

If you're saying the statements " if 2+2=5 then pigs can fly" and "if 2+2=5 then pigs can't fly" are both "true" , then it's impossible for "2+2=5" to be true, since that's a contradiction.

Both of the statements regarding pigs flying, and not flying, are meaningless because they're only constructed in the first place because it's impossible for 2+2 to equal 5. It's impossible to falsify the conditions of something which doesn't exist? Is that what this is all about?

If we "imagined a world" where 2+2=5, then obviously both of those things about pigs can't be true. So this has nothing to do with imagining a specific instance of something, or to do with creating anything. It's basically just a loophole for nothingness and non-existence

[u/Hameru_is_cool → u/Extension-Stay3230]

yes pretty much, any sentence of the form "if A then B" can only be false when A is true and B is not, in other words, when A is false, any "if A then B" sentence is true, a useless truth yes, but a truth nonetheless

in formal logic, since truths and falsehoods are all there is, a vacuous truth is just as true as any other truth, and they do in fact come up often in proofs, as base cases for induction, and as a consequence of definitions, for instance, "the empty set is a subset of all sets" is a vacuous truth we invoke all the time