So the thing I realized rather gradually - I must say starting about 20 years ago now that we know about computers and things - there's a possibility of a more general basis for rules to describe nature.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
From time immemorial, man has desired to comprehend the complexity of nature in terms of as few elementary concepts as possible.
The laws of nature are structured so that we grow and change, and get to experience the full spectrum of biological existence.
I think that the 'laws of nature' are also prone to evolve; I think they are more like habits than laws.
As Bromberger observed, rules are understood to be elements of the computational systems that determine the sound and meaning of the infinite array of expressions of a language; the information so derived is accessed by other systems in language use.
Other than the laws of physics, rules have never really worked out for me.
Nature provides exceptions to every rule.
My idea here is that, inasmuch as certain cognitive tasks and principles are tied to nature's laws, these tasks and principles are indifferent to language, culture, gender, or the particular mode of information that is provided.
The speculative part of my work is that these particular cognitive tasks - ways of thinking analytically - are tied to nature's laws.
The method of nature: who could ever analyze it?
My feeling is that scientific method has the power to account for and interlink all phenomena in the universe, including its origin, using the laws of nature. But that still leaves the laws unexplained.