What you just said is more a statement of faith than one based on evidence. YouPerhaps not at the moment, but the principle is that those absolute lawscanbe expressed exactly with mathematics. Whether we have the full understanding of the laws at present is neither here nor there, I'd suggest.

*think*(or wish, or hope) that "absolute laws", when and if they are discovered, will be expressible using mathematics. But there are no guarantees of that.

It would be a little strange to expect that a physicist who deliberately goes looking for mathematical theories will find something other than mathematical theories, would it not?Sure. And how many of these are non-mathematical? All improvements are still mathematical - i.e. can be expressed exactly as understood by maths.

Whose principle? The principle of the physicists who have been trained to use mathematics and to couch their theories in mathematical terms?But let's dispense with what our understanding of them is, and look at the objective laws. The principle is that these laws can still be expressed exactly by mathematics.

Yes, but your view is very common and held by a lot of people.Is that contentious?

An alternative would be that the workings of our universe, at least in some respects, might not lend themselves to a mathematical description. For instance, they might not be calculable. Or, more likely, there may be some details of the workings of our universe that only ever lend themselves toWhat would be an alternative?

*approximate*mathematical descriptions - perhaps to better and better approximations, but always with some "unexplained" or "unpredictable" cases or exceptions.

Arguably, even today's quantum theory has that problem. Sure, it can give us lots of useful results, but only in probabilistic terms. It cannot predict the outcome of measuring the spin of an electron as up or down, for instance.