On Logic and Alternate Universes

[FallentoReason]

For OP:

---

Let's first define what we mean by "logic" [1].
  

if we have a look at 1C, we can see that logic can be said to be a formal set of axioms by which we do our thinking and reasoning. The name we give to the logic of this universe is conveniently "logic". 

Let's look at "logical" [2].


Now, let's hypothesize about an alternate universe. This universe would have its own logic (1C - ...the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.) by which beings would reason within this universe, and for the sake of convenience, let's call it "goblygoop". Let's also give goblygoop a new entry: according to goblygoop, 2 + 2 = 5 is actually true. 

Now, the question is, "is goblygoop logical?". Initially it seems like it isn't, because according to 2A goblygoop needs to agree to the rules of 'logic' (our logic in this universe), which it doesn't. But obviously, that answer is relative to this universe. We can see that goblygoop does in fact conform with 2B, since goblygoop is the way in which thinking and reasoning would work in that universe. Therefore, goblygoop is a form of logic (1C) and it can be said to be logical (2B).




The list of "inb4's"

"But 2 + 2 = 5 is not true! Don't you know that it's 4?" - yes, according to our conditioned mind in this universe, that is the answer. But it won't be the same answer in goblygoop. 

"But 2 + 2 will always equal 4 no matter what." - no, that is a bare assertion. 2 + 2 didn't have to equal 4 in this universe. The mere roll of the dice made it so.

"But you're using our logic to prove their logic!" - no, my aim isn't to prove any of their axioms. I'm simply saying that an arbitrary set of axioms can by all accounts be considered "logical", even if that logic won't make sense here. It's all relative to the universe you're in.


EDIT: for the purposes of polling you guys, give kudos if you agree, or comment if you disagree.

---

I think this is what we can get when we give too much credit to logic over metaphysics. We can arrive at anything by using logic alone, even if we arrive at something absurd or something non-real, while metaphysics is to deal with reality and must be supposed in every logic in order to arrive at real conclusion. Hence classical philosophy which gives priority to metaphysics and which arrives to conclusion that God exists is more superior than the modern philosophy which relies on logic alone and that which can conclude that there is no God in a non-real way.

We use non-real things all the time in order to conduct our examinations. They're called thought experiments, which can enlighten us about metaphysics. Consider the train thought experiment where you can either save 1 or 5 people from being run over. But here's the thing - even though we can use something that is on the brink of being real, the thing being analysed might *not* be. There are such people who think morality is metaphysically meaningless i.e. non-existent. The only way to find out is to, in some ways, go beyond what we know to be real.