But I have to ask you about the "breaking" of the rules of Univ*. Consider my earlier thinking about the rule F = ma. If we were to explore the workings of this rule by driving a car into a building at high speed, would it really be accurate to describe that as "breaking" the rules of Univ*? I tend to think not. It seems more accurate to say that the rules embody their own consequences of application.
Unlike other metaphysical concepts I could name, it seems to me that one cannot break the rules set forth by Univ*. This is good, because the rules are generally simple and quantifiable. One might be tempted think of the rules as being restricting, but we must remember that the operation of those same rules is what has brought us the multitudinous glory that is...Univ*.
True, O enlightened one. I was thinking about human-made rules for getting along with Univ*, such as: "Never forget that F = G (m1 * m2)/d^2." What follows the phrase "Never forget that ..." is a rule of Univ*, which cannot be broken. But if you forget that rule while climbing a ladder, Univ* will, with inexorable justice, remind you of your error.