RE: On Logic and Alternate Universes
November 6, 2016 at 2:33 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2016 at 2:40 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I wouldn't try to infer much from convenience, myself.
To be illogical -is- to be inconsistent, but only with a specific set of rules. If you have a rule that says "no swimming at the pool", and I'm swimming at the pool, I'm not being consistent with that rule, but I'm also not being illogical. That's why we can't really boil down what it is to be illogical as inconsistency, or even inconsistency with rules in the general, in and of itself. It's not enough. It's what we refer to, logically, as insufficient condition.
Now, about indeterminancy. If their sysm gace different values for the same question, it would be much more -difficult- to work out how to think about their universe, but not, necessarily, impossible. Perhaps it spit out a range of values...and while it might be any value within that range, they'd at least know the range (and maybe even the range changed, from time to time).
It would be fundamentally probabilistic thinking..but it could work. Sure, it doesn't follow like stuff follows here, it doesn't follow logically, but that's kind of the point. It's a different universe that works a different way.
If that's not an interesting universe to you, then why propose it, why not ditch this different universe with different rules altogether, and talk about universes that do interest you, different universes with the same rules, where things follow, logically, in the familiar fashion?
To be illogical -is- to be inconsistent, but only with a specific set of rules. If you have a rule that says "no swimming at the pool", and I'm swimming at the pool, I'm not being consistent with that rule, but I'm also not being illogical. That's why we can't really boil down what it is to be illogical as inconsistency, or even inconsistency with rules in the general, in and of itself. It's not enough. It's what we refer to, logically, as insufficient condition.
Now, about indeterminancy. If their sysm gace different values for the same question, it would be much more -difficult- to work out how to think about their universe, but not, necessarily, impossible. Perhaps it spit out a range of values...and while it might be any value within that range, they'd at least know the range (and maybe even the range changed, from time to time).
It would be fundamentally probabilistic thinking..but it could work. Sure, it doesn't follow like stuff follows here, it doesn't follow logically, but that's kind of the point. It's a different universe that works a different way.
If that's not an interesting universe to you, then why propose it, why not ditch this different universe with different rules altogether, and talk about universes that do interest you, different universes with the same rules, where things follow, logically, in the familiar fashion?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
