A lot of people seem to be asking questions about what would happen if the laws of science suddenly reasserted themselves after some absurd thing happens. Three recent questions I found right off the bat are:
- A Box That Scrambles Particles
- If rain magically started falling over the Sahara, what would happen?
- What would happen if the black hole at the center of a galaxy was removed?
The absurd thing could be the result of some hitherto-undiscovered science, technology indistinguishable from magic, handwavium, or just magic itself. It doesn't matter.
There seems to be a bit of a hole in the topics covered by the various science-based, reality-check, hard-science, and magic tags. There's always been ground not covered by the false science-magic dichotomy here.
We could tag questions like this with science-based but with another tag along the lines of post-absurdity , science-as-janitor, or some other name you may like better. (God forbid I should ask for a tag split!)
One might argue that science-based already covers it. But the problem I've seen with science-based alone is that people want to work the cause of the absurdity into their answers, explaining the absurdity with science or proposing some alternate condition that continues afterwards.
This sometimes results in terrific answers (like the one to A Box That Scrambles Particles) but it actually misses the point.
OP started that question with "I have a box". I interpreted that as a cue to let the ("black") box do what it does and let science do what it does. To accomplish this, one should use a mental guillotine to chop the the absurdity away from its aftermath, and concentrate on the aftermath.
I recall a what-if tag (possibly only proposed; couldn't find it in the list), but that's too general, and encourages people to ask for writing advice. Other tags like alternate-reality or simulation were really about something completely different.