What if the laws of physics were different?

That is no way to talk about our finest atheletes.
Yes, but when they are obsessedw ith running around a track it is called athletecism. When they are obsessed with finding a light bulb that works it is called science.

Neurosis and guts/determination are on the same scale.

From my reading is seems as though they took neurosis for granted and we think it unusual, but for them it was rare in any malignant fashion while for us malignancy is the common denominator.. As our politics reveals, we are not a country which loves itself...

Said what, precisely?

This thread is the premise of a bazillion sci-fi stories. Asimov actually intrudes a whole anthology by posing exactly that question. One about a rubber ball that bounces higher each bounce springs to mind.

They exist you know. But it has been a long time since anyone has seen one. The problem with these balls is that if you throw them once you spend the rest of your time chasing them, until they finally bounce high and far enough never to be seen again.

Of course, you could keep it in a closed environment. This has been attempted, but instead of bouncing higher and higher, it will bounce between the floor and the ceiling faster and faster, until it reaces light speed, at which point it will enter a warp field and spontaneously and randomly spacetravel.

Until we understand all the currently suggested laws of physics, I think there might still be some surprises left without changing the ones we know about.

What if humans can tap into zero ponit energy, or something similar...
What if the laws of physics can be bypassed by the human mind, as in space travel will be possible by the mind, as it seems impossible for the body by the limitations of the speed of light.

I think the laws of physics are pretty solid, but we could find out some very interesting possibilities when we discover the exceptions to the law.

When I looked at the title of this topic and began to delve into the original post, I grimaced slightly because I don't accept the premise of the question. I want to touch on several points, but first and foremost I'd like to comment on the laws of nature. Questioning the state of reality if the laws of nature were different seems to be a dead end inquiry because it seems to assume that the laws of nature were "written". Written in the sense that they could have been defined in a number of ways prior to their "implementation", and that they behave arbitrarily. I'm about to veer off on a tangent here, and I apologize before hand, but the premise that nature can be rewritten serves as the basis for arguments which claim that the order of the universe could not exist any other conceivable way, or else we would not have come into existance. In other words, the universe is a finely tuned system that exists because of careful implementation and a finely tuned eye for detail. I would argue, however, that the universe exists in this form because it is the only form which is logical, and that other deviants could never have been possible, which gives the choices of either living according to our current laws or not at all. I don't know if I am conveying my thoughts very well here because the point I am arguing against seems similar to my stance, but they actually are a bit different.

But besides the blithering about the laws of nature, I believe that it is important to consider the definition of magic in order to further understand the possibility of its existance. The current concept of magic, aside from the spectacle put on by experts in trickery, is that which is typically seen in films and various video games; essentially magic, properly defined, would be that which isn't possible in the realm of nature. In other words, hopping over the moon or launching blasts of fire from the palms of my hands would be "considered" to be magic. I put the emphasis on considered because we currently do not understand the means to actually do either one of these things, but that shouldn't entail that we can't. It's sort of like defining the Science Fiction genre 50,60 + years ago, in that the sorts of things that were defined as Science Fiction were only defined that way because people in those days didn't understand the full capacity of nature and human ability to the extent that we do today. But the scientific enterprise is steadily becoming more complex, bizarre, and downright "magical". Of course, magical only from a superficial perspective.

Still, topics about magic and wizardry all seem to boil down to certain definitions which aren't neccessarily universally accepted. Everyone has their own definition or a variant of another's, and everything just becomes one big debate on semantics.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke.