> That statement is problematic. It implies a metaphysical set of laws that make physical stuff relate a certain way.

What I meant was that since physics is the scientific search for the laws of nature, then if there's an infinite number of them, then the pursuit becomes somewhat meaningless, as an infinite number of laws aren't really laws at all.

> They symbols form incomplete models because we can't get to the bottom of why the relationships exist.

Why would a model be incomplete if we don't know why the laws are what they are? A model pretty much is a set of laws; it doesn't require an explanation (we may want such an explanation, but it doesn't improve the model).