The limitations of science

The questions must be distinguished. Science can look beyond certain laws and ask why they are the way they are, but the answer will place them above other laws. I don’t think science can offer an explanation for why our fundamental laws of nature are the way they are, because if these are the fundamental laws then it doesn’t have the tools to explain them (any explanation is done within their framework). The only way to explain the laws of nature from the ground up is if it ultimately turns out that the laws of physics are nothing more than laws of mathematics/logic, i.e. pure logic that leaves no room for chance (which could have been different). It is now common to think that the laws of nature are not logic but something that could have been different. Additional universes may exist, and perhaps there may be some scientific indications of their existence. This does not mean that every time a scientist says what one is, it is a scientific finding. On the contrary, it is usually speculation and possible hypotheses.