> So it is far more accurate to say "our 'laws' continue to model the universe well' rather than 'the universe obeys laws'.

More cautious perhaps (or "too cautious"), but possibly an inadvertent playing with words. If the model that well describes the universe is based on order (and above the quantum level it is), then the order (alias "laws") must exist in the universe (at least in our universe, granted). Is another conclusion possible?

Yes. Perhaps nothing exists at all but the thing called "I" which has the inexplicable power to delude itself into thinking that other things exist. That's all "I" can be absolutely certain of. But perhaps I should be saying "You," since if "I" am right then the only existing "I" is you: the illusion called "Lighter" is just another of your illusions. (And as such, I'm sorry to have to break it to you this way.)

The point is, in the abstract, anything *is* hypothetically possible - except that you don't exist (though the being that exists would clearly be very different from being you think yourself to be.) Since everything is hypothetically possible, the laws of the universe may well come to a screeching halt in the next twelve minutes, quite inexplicably, and we (or just you, in this "model") would be left with no logic, virtually no knowledge, and a future (or might it be a past? Or something sideways?) even more unpleasant than what we think we have now.

So unless one is ready to commit to solipsism, the idea that scientific laws do not reflect the universe we see is what I would call - at best - unprovable by the very logic that we're bound to use.

Assuming that "logic" isn't just another of "my" delusions.

Which we can obviously state but which we just as obviously can't assume. So that line of thinking leads nowhere.

Either natural laws/regular patterns (including all mathematical relationships) exist independent of the mind, or all is delusion (or worse, illusion, which implies that some other existent thing is fooling me/you/us.)

So perhaps the most precise formulation would be that, *if* the universe I/you/we see is real, natural "laws" are indeed part of it and not just a human construct.

*If,* however, solipsism is correct or the visible universe "goes mad," that conclusion would be falsified. But not, I think, till then.