On Logic and Alternate Universes

[GrandizerII]

I would like to add that there are two separate problems: 1) whether there are absolutes or not and 2) whether human thought processes can  determine if any particular principles are indeed absolute.

Right.

Neither of which is a problem for the question at hand.

Wrong.

Because logical absolutes are absolute, hypotheticals can't be hypothesized that violate them...--because the very structure of hypotheticals themselves are built onto them and all universes must conform to them (that's why they're absolute)--nothing at all can violate logical absolutes. I get this, I fathom this, I realize this; you do not.

I would say nothing at all should violate logical absolutes. We should never be too confident about the law of identity or other logical laws/absolutes holding unconditionally in every single form of reality there may be. That would be folly.

To be clear, I'm not saying at all we should not always rely on logic in order to arrive at all truths we can arrive at, or that we should entertain the use of some "illogic" to determine truths about this reality we're in. But at the same time, let's not absolutely assert that every aspect/form of this reality must absolutely unconditionally conform to logic. It would be nonsense, of course, if it did not conform absolutely to logic, but you just never know.