To use an example from a different domain, finance, it is completely fair to be skeptical of models and assume there's huge things they may miss. In that case, we have seen models predict things like "this scenario should only happen once in a billion years" - and then occur a few times on consecutive trading days. "Don't overtrust the model" is practically an object lesson at this point, assuming the 'model' here is actually a model and not a literal restatement of physical laws.
> assuming the 'model' here is actually a model and not a literal restatement of physical laws.
I'm not sure there is a difference. Imhu, what we call "physical laws" are always models. Like, Newton's theory of gravity, which predicts that gravity is inverse to the square of the distance. Then Einstein came along and made a better model with relativity theory. Which cannot be the end of the story, because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics...
Well physicists try to make models that explain everything, so once you do get to the end you have the law. In fundamental physics we haven't gotten there but there's probably examples in other areas where we basically don't think it's gonna change.
In finance nobody thinks they have anything approaching a law, just a regularity that somewhat predicts some phenomenon well enough to make some bucks. There's no suggestion that all the effects are captured.
There is no end. Laws are just very very well performing models. But every 'law' breaks down if you violate the assumptions of the model: make things too big/small/hot/cold etc.
I'd say that the true "laws of physics" are things like conservation of mass-energy, CPT/Lorentz invariance, the principle of least action, and such. There aren't many of them, and they are inputs that constrain the models. The Standard Model, for instance, is designed to respect Lorentz invariance, because as far as we can tell, Lorentz invariance is a True And Unchanging Forever Law Of Reality.
