Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Ryft]

And why, Ryft, can x not be not-x?

Lolwut?

X most certainly can be not-X. What it cannot be is X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect.

Because that is the way we have observed our universe to behave.

No, it is not. We observe X and we observe not-X. But the law of non-contradiction (X cannot be not-X at the same time and in the same respect) is not an a-posteriori descriptive or a conclusion drawn from empirical observation. We can draw a-posteriori conclusions about what a thing is and what it is not, but that it cannot be X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect is a conclusion drawn from a-priori logical principles.

Elaborate upon the law of non-contradiction without referring to an observation of the world around you.

Elaborate? The law of non-contradiction is a self-evident proposition; i.e., it is known to be true by simply understanding the meaning of the terms. The very statement of the law of non-contradiction (X cannot be not-X at the same time and in the same respect) makes zero references to any observation of the world around you.

Logic isn't a spirit that goes around making blocks fall into line.

As if anyone argued otherwise.