Are the laws of physics contained within matter?

We will present it to the physical-logical evidence.
Because if they are inherent in matter, then they must have been created, because all matter is created.
And so, whoever created matter would have had to create the laws.

But if they are based on “spirit” then it is possible that they have always existed and no creator is needed for them, but only a giver.
And here the principle of sufficient reason is weaker than causality.

There is no nef”m. If they are within matter, then they were not created with it. Matter was created because the laws do not exist. And even if they are not within it, they do not exist and were not created again.
Regarding the laws, if they are eternal, there is the principle of sufficient reason, and if they were enacted at some time, there is also the principle of causality. Explained in the third notebook.

But if there is a theory that explains that the special universe had to deterministically emerge from the conditions that were always here (Hawking, for example), then why do we need God? Where does he come in?
There are two theses that need to be decided between them: 1) A scientific theory that shows that the special universe could have been created by itself, and that it had to happen. 2) God created the universe. Why choose 2 when 1 explains everything?
Are we surprised when we see a falling stone? Obviously not because it is necessary as a result of the data and laws. The same is true with the universe.
If the laws are a result of the structure of the primordial matter (or the primordial laws) then it is a logical necessity that they be like this.
I would appreciate a detailed answer.

There is not and cannot be a theory that explains that the universe necessarily emerged from the conditions that existed before, unless those conditions were not a vacuum but had certain characteristics (and they dictated the special universe that emerged). Then the question returns to those conditions, who created them.

1) In any case, I would be happy for the Rabbi to say what the essence of the laws of physics is, a function of matter or an external force.
2) So there are actually not two theses here, one more reasonable than the other (unlike the Boeing or clock argument, where one thesis is more reasonable and plausible than the other), right?
If I assume that there was a pre-existing condition that led to a complex result, there is no unreasonable element in this view (like an airplane created from a pile of scrap metal), everything here is reasonable and even completely necessary. Why does the Rabbi see this as irrationality? It doesn't matter if the laws were created out of thin air, but if they are a necessary result of some pre-existing condition, I don't see the need to add G-d.

1) I don't know. I'm not even entirely sure that these are two truly different possibilities (because the laws are not applicable, so what really matters is the difference between the possibilities?).
2) I already wrote to you: The question is who created the old situation? You don't gain anything from inventing that old situation.

1) Thank you. Do you know of any materials that deal with the subject?
2) I don't understand. I claim that the situation was never created but is completely ancient = no creator is needed (like God). What is unreasonable about that?

See the discussion of the principle of sufficient reason in the third notebook.

1) I meant materials that deal with the essence of natural laws.
2) The things are written really briefly and not that convincing in my opinion. So does the rabbi agree that it is inappropriate to say that atheism is implausible? (If some law or situation is ancient).
By the way, does the rabbi know of any convincing sources that deal with the principle of sufficient reason?

The principle of sufficient reason is discussed in the book Metaphysics by Richard Taylor. There is a lot of material on this in English and it is worth searching the Internet.
What is the question? I have already explained that I strongly disagree. Atheism is clearly irrational.

Thanks.
1) What is the principle of sufficient reason called in English?
2) I'm basically arguing that the word "reasonable" doesn't belong here, if the laws are ancient. It's not like whether it's reasonable for a clock to have created itself or not, because a clock isn't ancient.
3) And what about materials on the nature of the laws?

1. Sufficient reason
2. And I argue that it is. The principle of causality also does not arise from experience, and so does the principle of sufficient reason. Therefore, the distinction you brought up (whether it is an ancient artifact or not) is irrelevant in my opinion.
3. I do not know. As mentioned, I doubt whether the question makes sense at all.

Thanks for everything.
Just one last thing, are the constants created at the time of the bang a rigid and direct consequence of some component that existed before the bang (like a stone falling as a direct result of gravity), or is it a weighting of several factors (like rolling a die or lottery) according to which they were determined in an acute manner, so that it can be seen as a lottery of constants whose result is surprising?

As far as I know, no one knows how the constants were created. There are hypotheses and suggestions, but this will forever remain outside the realm of science. Even if they are explained, it will be on a different constant basis, and in the end we will be left without an explanation. Otherwise, you have put physics above logic and mathematics, and it is unlikely to happen.