> (This is a bit of a stretch as it's not possible to deduce the laws of the universe rigorously.)Not sure I agree. This is known as the problem of induction, and Solomonoff tackles it quite well I think.

 Certainly it is not possible to deduce every law governing the Universe! For example posit there is source code for the Universe; then assume a second Universe that is identical except its source code differs in that after 35 billion years suddenly something happens - but since there is no way to investigate the laws directly, nobody inside could possible "deduce" the complete set of laws, there is no way to know that the source code contains a check that gets tripped after 35 billion years. Since only one of the two versions is the one running the universe, but it is not possible to determine which one, therefore the inhabitants of the Universe cannot deduce the laws that govern them: for the first 35 bn years the two universes are bit for bit identical.So if I wanted to assume there is a one hundred megabyte source code that somehow was actually exactly the source code governing the entire Universe, I'd have to assume that axiomatically. We could never "deduce" it and know for certain that it is the only possible source code and our Universe must be following exactly it and nothing else.At least, this is my thinking...
 You absolutely can deduce those laws, which is what Solomonoff induction does [1]. It's been formally proven to converge on reproducing the correct function in the limit.> Since only one of the two versions is the one running the universe, but it is not possible to determine which one, therefore the inhabitants of the Universe cannot deduce the laws that govern them: for the first 35 bn years the two universes are bit for bit identical.Correct, until they're not, at which point you can distinguish them. Until then, you prefer the laws whose axiomatic complexity is lower. It's basically a formalization of Occam's razor.