(MiG Tournament) Physical laws must conform to preconceptions of what is logical

My position can be summarized in the following two syllogisms. The first syllogism shows that physical laws are contingent upon logic and the second one shows that they must conform to logic. I think either syllogism alone is enough to affirm the resolution, so together, these arguments make a strong case.P1. Mathematics is contingent upon logic.P2. Physical laws are contingent upon mathematics.C1. Therefore, Physical laws are contingent upon logic.P3. Reality must conform to what is logical.P4. Physical laws describe reality.C2. Therefore, physical laws must conform to what is logical. P1. Mathematics is contingent upon logic.The most fundamental law of logic is the Law of Identity. [1] The law of identity is a formal title given to a most obvious tautology: what is, is, and what isn't, isn't. The law of identity is essentially the law of reality. It is axiomatic and to deny its metaphysical necessity is to make knowledge impossible.Likewise, the most fundamental axiom of mathematics is the Axiom of Equality. [2] A = A. At first glance, it appears we have to ways of describing the same tautology. However, mathematics carries with it something that logic does itself does not require: value. While the Law of Identity describes reality of existence ("If you have A, then you have A."), the Axiom of Equality describes number theory ("If you have A number of things, then it is equal to A number of things.") Mathematical logic is the application of pure logic to quantities.In modal terms, the logical law of identity is modally necessary (could not fail to exist in any possible world). Mathematics could fail to exist if and only if logic failed to exist. Since logic will not fail to exist, neither will mathematics, so it seems they are co-equal. However, the Law of Identity can surely exist regardless of the existence of the Axiom of Equality, but the same cannot be said of the converse. Therefore, the Axiom of Equality is in fact contingent upon the Law of Identity. Ergo, mathematics is contingent upon logic.To say it in simpler terms, mathematics was developed by reasoning beings that were already reasoning according to logic before mathematics existed. We intrinsically know the law of identity, but we do not intrinsically know the axiom of equality, even though it is certainly intuitive. In fact, it's intuitive only because it closely resembles the law of identity, albeit in a slightly different context.P2. Physical laws are contingent upon mathematics.I will venture to guess that this premise will not be contested given the nature of Con's position. So I will rely on its self-evidence nature for now and defend it later if the need arises.C1. Therefore, Physical laws are contingent upon logic.If physical laws are contingent upon mathematics, and mathematics is contingent upon logic, it therefore stands to reason that physical laws are contingent upon logic.P3. Reality must conform to what is logical.There are three fundamental laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. [3] I submit that if any of these do not describe reality is it really is, then we cannot know reality at all. If my opponent wants to argue that reality might contain contradictions, then I would ask how he knows that anything he himself proposes is not a contradiction. And if he gives reasons for his knowing that some things are not contradictions, then I would ask how he knows his reasons are not contradictions. The fact is we need these laws to even begin describing reality.P4. Physical laws describe reality.Physical science, like all sciences, works in the realm of scientific theory. It is the goal of the scientist to test these theories to eventually expose law-like understanding of reality. It is difficult for theories to advance into law, since a law as the following properties as identified by Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965): True, at least within their regime of validity. Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82) Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies) Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82) Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83) Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59) Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman) Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman) The reason the qualifications of law-ness in physics is so stringent is because these are the very qualities necessary to describe reality. Reality itself is universal, stable, omnipotent, etc. It's not to say that a law must be "simple" to be an actual law of the universe, but that when a theory has all the other qualities but lacks simplicity, it's possible there are multiple smaller laws at work. Nitpicking aside, a physical law is clearly something that describes physical reality.Theoretical physics is an important field, as the multitude of theoretical equations and models serve to bring us ever closer to discovering more laws about reality. However, theories—while based in mathematics—are never guaranteed to describe reality, which is why they remain theories until science can determine its veracity as law. Here we must resist conflating theoretical physics—as vital a science as it is—with physical law—the accurate description of reality as we know it.Just because physicists can develop mathematically sound models of the universe before planck time does not make them representative of reality. Mathematical soundness tells us whether or not we are on the right track, but by itself it cannot tell us if we are correct. In fact, the only reason why so many theoretical models exist is because our lack of complete knowledge of reality leaves room for them. As more physicals laws are discovered, we will have fewer physical theories about them. The reason is that theories are put to rest once they logically contradict reality regardless of their mathematical soundness. In other words, physical laws trump theoretical models because they conform to reality.C2. Therefore, physical laws must conform to what is logical.If reality must conform to logic and physical laws describe that reality, then it stands to reason that physical laws must conform to logic.ConclusionI have offered two straight forward arguments to affirm the resolution. However, there is one thing I have admittedly taken for granted: the laws of logic. I anticipate that my opponent will want to debate my preconception of logic and I presume he might provide his own. If so, I will aim to defend the absolute and transcendental nature of logic as needed. In the meantime, I present the above two opening arguments to my opponent and invite his critique.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...