Your definition of magic is flawed. If they can be broken, they aren't the laws of physics.
No, if they cannot be bent or broken then magic does not exist; it is the magic in your universe that is non-existent not the laws of physics in the alternative magical universe. The consequences of a 100% non-magical world are not very nice, since it means that freedom/power are illusions since given that the mind is outside of the natural world (aka supernatural) any genuine deliberate influence of the mind on material reality (such as our material bodies) is actually magic. A 100% non-magical universe is basically a deterministic universe governed by mindless causality where our subjective wills can no way alter anything since everything is pre-determined by the iron laws of physics.
But ultimately there has to a distinction between supernatural and natural in order for concepts like magic to exist. If what you are calling magic is the basis of the natural world then the
super-natural status of your 'magic' goes away and hence it no longer is really magic; you have rules and then you have exceptions, the exceptions are what we call magic. They are things which should not be possible according to the rules but yet happen; the problem is that eventually the exceptions become the rule.
For instance, if a single wizard conjures up a light in the Underdark then this can be said to be magic since given the rules the Underdark should be dark and the wizard has just made an exception. If the whole Underdark is lit up on a constant basis by 'magic' then we have now made a rule out of the exception, that is to say the lighting up of the Underdark has now become a fundamental principle of the natural universe.
I know it is a common line of thinking, it simply happens not to work intellectually speaking.
People who make spelling errors in spite of spellchecking technology don't get to decide what works intellectually.
The rest of what you said is bullshit because settings where people understand magic to a scientific degree are a dime a dozen. For instance, in every official D&D setting there are wizards who understand magic the same way a chemist understands chemistry. Wizards can cast spells not because they are inherently magical in any way, but because they have studied magic so thoroughly that they understand exactly what they need to do to make magic happen on demand. In Eberron, magic is so well understood that it has been industrialized. Whether or not a phenomena in a fictional setting can be explained by the rules of that universe is irrelevant as to whether or not it's magic; that is determined whether or not it can be explained by the natural laws of our own universe and if the author said it was magic or superscience. Actually, I take that back. It relies entirely on whether or not the author says it's magic. A phenomena that is entirely explainable by science in our own universe could be magic in a fictional setting just because the author said so. Furthermore, while magic is by definition not mundane, that does not mean it must be uncommon in a fictional setting. I could write a setting where everyone could turn lead into gold just by wiggling their fingers at it, and how they were able to do this was completely understood. If I said it was magic, then you could argue otherwise until the heat death of the universe and still be wrong.
Spelling is variable depending upon the country and besides the ability to spell perfectly has more to do with whether you have automatic spellchecking technology installed than anything about the authors intellectual abilities. Not to mention there might be quite brilliant intellectuals to whom English is not their native language.
The author can say this is magic but he cannot make it actually magical any more than I can take two creatures in dwarf fortress and by naming both of them 'hat people' make them actually the same creature. They are actually two different things even though the creator has chosen to call them the same thing.
This is not to say however that magic cannot follow objective rules, only that these rules cannot be the fundamental basis of the natural material universe.
It is like we have a computer game with internal scripts and then we have cheat codes to override those scripts. However if we made the cheat codes the fundamental basis for the game mechanics then they would while continuing to exist and function cease to cheat codes. In Ebberron's case the Science/Technology question is whether the universe has a fundamental basis that is separate from the powers being used industrially or whether it does not.
So have the people activated every cheat code under the sun (industrial magic) or are they simply playing the game very well (technology)?
But I ALSO kind of disagree with GoblinCookie, because sometimes a magical explanation for everything is fine. So one might say I agree with the "not always magic" side, but don't like the arguments; I disagree with the "always magic" side, but think they sound cool.
A lot of it is a series of boxes; we have the bigger box (the natural universe) and then we have smaller boxes (magical things/events). The smaller boxes have their own internal rules but they cannot grow so big that they become bigger than the large box that contains them.