Phemox,

"No, it's not a false analogy."- I described exactly what you said and demonstrated that it is. You are comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity. You may try to save it with special pleading fallacies such as arguing that logic is simply naming something (law of identity-? or do you reject this as a law of logic), but then using it as though it is something more than that (law of contradiction).

You continued "It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic." Here you use logic to mean simple identification but then it means something higher like 'making sense' in the next sentence.

As far as metaphysics everyone has metaphysical commitments, yours are associated with the uniformity of nature. How do you answer Hume's problem of induction? In other words the argument that there is no rational guarantee that the future will resemble the past.

You keep associating logic as simple identification and enumeration such as we could arrange 12345 to be 12354. But you say we cannot change the reality that 2+2 would ever actually equal 5. But you are failing to see the difference between the concrete world of sensation and the abstract world of math(most perfect geometric shapes for example). Many laws of math and logic are never experienced in the physical world but yet they are subject to the law of contradiction.
You are still assuming the error that logic is from the material world and have not answered my objection regarding the law of identity (which you can't reject and try to have math absolutely non-contradictory. For if the fly you counted with the number 1 is in a constant state of change [molecules in motion] then it's existance is like a river where you never see the same water twice. Here you have the metaphysical commitment that a thing maintains its identity although time and location change along with its body. Like you as a baby being the same you as an adult and not a bunch of different people in between.)
Nor have you addressed the problem of induction as it would apply to logic in your metaphysical world. Plus the law of contradiction would only be probable, another devastating error you avoid addressing. I would also be interested to know in your probability if there are infinite possiblities? If not what metaphysical commitment would prohibit this?
This whole thing is a wreck. You said also "Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute" So this is absolutely true? Or absolutely false?