Is there a possible universe where the laws of logic and math are different from what we know?

Alas, you have correctly identified that "anti-intellectual" trend which seems to have gradually infected this "specialist" forum over the years. References are of course mandatory for serious correspondents...a point which is resented by those who are here for the social dancing, or a lightweight anti-dementia work-out.

This reification of "laws" of nature, i.e., describing the physical world as if it were obeying statutes, is bizzare. It should be obvious that natural "laws" (theoretical nomothetic generalizations) do little more than describe how the physical world "behaves." It also seems that somewhere in the vast universe, there may be behavioral variations far different from ours. Moreover, as we've stressed before, exotic sentient creatures may enjoy (or suffer)--as expressions of their physical makeup--cognitive ways of being far different from ours.
That's my anti-dementia work out for today.

Indeed ! I quite like Brian Cox's subtitle to his book on Quantum Theory

The word Universe has recently been twisted by ignoramus and the fashion spread and we now have to deal with it it in "modern" terms if we want people to understand what we mean...so in modern terms answering, yes, there may be niche rules, to niche places, to which some people call Universes within a Multiverse...in old good language the Multiverse is the Universe. Twisting and obfuscating aside that's what it is. So in good old languaging, NO ! There is only one big set of rules that rules over all local ruling if you wish...REALITY is one not several although people that actually understand this are becoming old and dwindling in number...Discovery channel wont help you much on this regard either...don't fool yourself with "lasers" and flashing "Star Wars" pop science talks...

Sounds reasonable.

There's only one thing in that screed with which I disagree, Fil. 'Reality' is subjective. What seems 'real' to you, may seem like a fantasy to me. What seems 'real' to me may be a hallucination to you. (I use the word 'seems' because none of us know, or can know, what the ultimate reality actually is.)

Good point, and well taken.

But the thing is that REALITY may be something completely divorced from what it "seems" to you or me or anyone.

Whatever REALITY is...it cannot be subjective...it has to be objective, because whatever it is...it IS.

It appears none of us knows what the ultimate REALITY is...but that does not mean that what it "seems" to us...is a subjective reality. It simply is what reality seems to us to be.

But the REALITY is whatever it actually IS.

Reality is something you feel you can pontificate about without reading up on the subject.

You made the full extent of your beliefs known a long time ago.

I do not do "believing", Izzy...and I do not pontificate on REALITY. In fact, I freely acknowledge that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Sorry you are so out of sorts that you have to get into this kind of nonsense, but I will accommodate you if you insist.

You do do believing Frank, you're one of the most believingest people I know.

No I do not, Izzy.

Why ya getting so worked up?

Life not treating you right?

Is that what you believe Frank ?

Not at all, although talking to you does tend to make one lose the will to live.

Nope.

It is what I know.

Really?

Makes one wonder why you do it then.

If what you say is true, it seems rather foolish to do so to me.

Reality being subjective would require subjectivity being an objective fact. A contradiction.
People have to stop confounding relational with subjective, because "subjective" is obscure wording while relational it is not.
There is no relativity without an absolute.

Precisely, Fil.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...but whatever it is...it IS.

So I can know that about REALITY (even though I do not know what it IS)...

...It is objective no matter what.

No. There is no relativity without an agreed set of axioms.

"Relativity theory" per se in physics depends on axioms about the constancy of the speed of light and that the "laws of physics" are the same for potential observers. Ironically the first axiom came from the rejection/disagreement of Newton's "absolute frame of reference". No one can say whether Einstein's axioms are the end of the story. That point is significant to the OP.

Gibberish !