On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

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 a contradiction. You are being illogical because your actions aren't lining up with an axiom set in place.

 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.

Doesn't follow, for now.

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).  

Sure, I agree.

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.

And the point being that it *works*, hence why it's logical.

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?

But it is interesting to me, hence why I evoked the hypothetical. And perhaps I'll have to make another thread where we can continue the original discussion, despite our differences as to what classifies as "logical".