<i>&gt; Same could be said about science. Correct? We are making stories out of randomness? And it&#x27;s laws only have meaning in a learned context? Are you arguing semantics?</i><p>No, that&#x27;s not it.<p>If you only ever need to talk about the world with in-group peers and you never need to do any science, you can <i>absolutely</i> get by with an arbitrary story. But there are many instances where it becomes <i>essential</i> whether facts were pieced together into a story, or whether the story came first and facts are invented to fit it.<p>Imagine two groups of people getting placed on two different planets without <i>any</i> knowledge about anything. They don&#x27;t have any books, any cultural knowledge, nothing. Now give them a couple thousand of years and compare what knowledge they have amassed.<p>They both have access to the same universe, so they can make the same observations and figure out the same things about the mechanisms governing it. They both likely figure out how quantum physics works and discover relativity, because those are discoverable facts that apply anywhere. It doesn&#x27;t matter what the philosophical outlook of the people doing this research is, as long as they constrain themselves to the facts they will come to the same conclusions.<p>But if you compare their religions, if they have them, they will likely be <i>very</i> different. One of them may have an Abrahamic-like creation myth. One might be closer to Buddhism. They might come up with completely different ideas we can&#x27;t even conceive of. This happens because in the absence of facts you can just make up arbitrary stuff. And when they meet, each one will think their own religion is obvious and inescapable, but to the other one those arguments will sound like the complete non-sequiturs they actually are.<p>In fact, you can observe the same thing on this planet. If a Hindu, a Christian, and an atheist on today&#x27;s Earth want to exchange information, they <i>have</i> do it with a factual framework, because cultural&#x2F;religious conventions and definitions are not transferable across these boundaries. When two biologists are talking about adaptation mechanisms, it&#x27;s not fruitful if one uses stone age scripture as a reasoning tool.<p>You asked if laws only have meaning in a learned context. Of course we mostly get to learn from other people, that&#x27;s how knowledge works in the face of a very limited lifespan, resources, and capabilities. But it still matters where that knowledge originally came from, it&#x27;s still significant if those laws actually reflect how the universe works or if it&#x27;s just made up stuff that is in conflict with observable reality.