I agree. If I was criticizing something in my earlier post, it's theoretical physics' tendency to announce that various states of affairs are necessary or impossible in principle, because... followed by a little blizzard of mathematics. Sometimes the mathematics is pronounced to be a "proof" of this or that. And everyone knows that mathematics is supposed to deal in logical certainty, right? It's just "ignorant" not to believe it. I'm expressing skepticism about all that. It seems to me that the mathematics is basically assuming the truth and universal applicability of the various "laws" and then concluding that particular suggestions are logically/mathematically implied by or inconsistent with those premises. My doubts revolve around how we can possibly know the truth and universal applicability of the underlying laws. I'm quite happy to consider them as posits, as working assumptions in our thinking, assumptions that often produce very useful results. But working assumptions don't really possess the same kind of metaphysical necessity that supposed 'laws of physics' do. It's a lot easier for our working assumptions to be wrong than it is for the inviolable laws that God set down for all of creation to be violated. That's why I concluded with the opinion that I don't have a whole lot of problem imagining that there may be as-yet unknown ways to violate any of the so-called 'laws of physics'.